summer work travel (swt) - alliance exchange · this report presents findings from the assessment...

EurekaFacts is a full-service research fi rm, certifi ed to ISO 20252 (the international standard for market, opinion and social research).

Summer Work Travel (SWT) Program Review

Dear Readers,

This report presents findings from the assessment of the Summer Work Travel (SWT) program.

SWT is a cultural exchange J-1 visa program that brings over 100,000 college students to

experience life in the United States while working in seasonal jobs. The study was

commissioned by Alliance for International Exchange, an association of 90 nongovernmental

organizations comprising the international educational and cultural exchange community in the

United States. Alliance for International Exchange engaged EurekaFacts LLC, a social science

and market research firm to conduct an independent and rigorous assessment program. The

findings of this report are based on the review of program documents, previous research in

related areas, surveys of and qualitative interviews with SWT participants and employers, and

secondary analyses of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census data. The study offers

the perspective of the program from the points of view of participant and program alumni, and

employers as well as explores the economic impact of the program both in terms of contribution

to the U.S. economy and its effect on American jobs.

The study was conducted in full accordance with the international standard for market, public

opinion and social research ISO 20252, to which EurekaFacts is certified.

The findings show that the SWT program meets its cultural exchange and public diplomacy

goals, allowing college students from diverse backgrounds to experience and learn about life in

the United States. The SWT program also helps American employers to meet critical season

labor demands. Finally, given the shortage of seasonal labor, SWT participants do not compete

with Americans for these jobs. In fact, in view of adverse effects on business revenues and

services in the absence of the program, the SWT program potentially protects American

workers.

The research team wishes to thank the thousands of SWT alumni and hundreds of U.S.

employers for taking time to participate in this research. We also extend our appreciation to the

nonprofit organizations who operate the programs for contributing with their invaluable internal

data on SWT placements and participant characteristics. Finally, we would like to acknowledge

the Alliance Work Group who not only provided necessary support but also upheld the principle

of independent enquiry.

Sincerely

Jorge Restrepo

President and CEO, EurekaFacts

Alec Ulasevich PhD

Director of Public Affairs Research

Malinda Rhone PhD

Senior Research Analyst

Margie Eulner Ott

Consultant

Review of Summer Work Travel Program

i EurekaFacts, LLC - August 22, 2017

Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 3

Key Findings .............................................................................................................................. 5

SWT Program Review ................................................................................................................ 9

Overview ................................................................................................................................ 9

Sponsor Profile and Responsibilities .....................................................................................11

Overseas Agents Profile and Responsibilities ........................................................................12

Employer Profile and Responsibilities ....................................................................................12

Participant Profile and Responsibilities ..................................................................................12

Program Growth Leads to Calls for More Oversight ...............................................................15

SWT Regulatory Changes .....................................................................................................17

Sponsor Reports on Implementation of Regulatory Changes ................................................18

GAO Report Cites Program Improvements ............................................................................19

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................19

Participant Alumni Survey: Detailed Findings ...........................................................................20

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................20

Participant Characteristics .....................................................................................................20

Countries of Citizenship .....................................................................................................20

Placement ..........................................................................................................................21

Participation in Other Exchange Programs .........................................................................21

Employment Status ............................................................................................................22

Industry of Employment .....................................................................................................23

Professional Level in Business or Organization .................................................................23

Program Experience ..............................................................................................................24

Participant Satisfaction .......................................................................................................24

Motivation for Participation and Benefits ................................................................................25

Cultural Exchange ..............................................................................................................25

Impact on Future Career Options .......................................................................................26

Impact on Current Career ..................................................................................................28

Public Diplomacy ...................................................................................................................29

Perceptions and Opinions About the U.S. ..........................................................................29

Understanding the U.S. ......................................................................................................30


ii EurekaFacts, LLC - August 22, 2017

Making and Maintaining Friendships ..................................................................................31

Returns to the U.S. ............................................................................................................32

Employer Survey: Detailed Findings .........................................................................................33

Methodology ..........................................................................................................................33

Employer Characteristics .......................................................................................................33

SWT Seasonal Employment Rates ....................................................................................34

Employer Support/Assistance ................................................................................................35

Employer Satisfaction ............................................................................................................37

Motivation for Participation ....................................................................................................38

Labor Shortage and Cultural Exchange .................................................................................38

Employer Recruitment Efforts ................................................................................................39

Impact on Business ...............................................................................................................39

Lack of SWT Programs Equals Negative Business Outcomes ...........................................40

Summer Work Travel Changes the Business Culture ............................................................42

Economic Impact and Contribution to U.S. Economy ................................................................44

Key Findings..........................................................................................................................44

Contribution to the Economy .................................................................................................46

Factors Contributing to Decline in Seasonal Workforce ......................................................46

Relationship Between Summer Work Travel and Youth Unemployment ............................48

Impact of MSA Placements on Youth Employment ............................................................48

Proportion of SWT Participants in Tourism and Related Industries ....................................48

Relationship Between Number of SWT Placements and Seasonal Workforce Shortage .......49

Criticisms of the Program ..........................................................................................................54

Appendix A: Detailed Tables: Participant Survey ......................................................................57

Appendix B: Detailed Tables: Employer Survey ........................................................................61

Appendix C: Regression Models ...............................................................................................64

Model 1: Youth unemployment rates .....................................................................................65

Model 2: Number of SWT Participants. ..................................................................................66

Q and A.....................................................................................................................................67


1 EurekaFacts, LLC - August 22, 2017

Introduction Among the public diplomacy programs established under the Mutual Educational and Cultural

Exchange Act of 1961 (also known as the Fulbright-Hays Act), are several citizen exchange

programs designed to build a greater understanding of the American people and culture around

the world. A program category of the State Department-administered J-1 Visa Exchange Visitor

Program, Summer Work Travel (SWT) is one of these citizen exchange programs. The U.S.

State Department selects and oversees various implementing organizations to operate these

programs without governmental subsidies. For more than fifty years, the SWT program has

brought international college students to the U.S. to share their cultures and ideas with people

of the U.S. through temporary work and travel opportunities. In addition to the economic impact

this program has on local economies and communities, the program has a significant public

diplomacy impact because it promotes authentic cultural exchange opportunities for all

participants and the local communities in which they live and work.

SWT is currently the largest public diplomacy program in the U.S., bringing more than 100,000

participants annually for up to a 4-month stay during their home university summer break

periods. Through the program, international students live and work in the U.S., gaining deep

exposure to American culture and society. Employment in seasonal temporary jobs enables

students to underwrite the cost of the program and to cover their living expenses. This is an

important element of the program, because it allows the participation of youth from various

cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. The average cost to participate in the SWT program

is $2,700, including all fees, health insurance, and travel costs. This is very accessible when

compared to a year as an international student at a U.S. college or university, which averages

$35,370 at a public institution and $45,370 at a private institution.1

The Alliance for the International Exchange commissioned EurekaFacts to conduct primary and

secondary research on the SWT program. The Alliance for International Exchange is an

association of 90 international exchange implementing organizations comprising the

international educational and cultural exchange community in the United States. Twenty one of

the 90 organizations are designated SWT sponsors. EurekaFacts is an independent research

organization that specializes in social science and policy research, with a background in

providing research to international exchange organizations. The research task included:

● Review of the history and current state of the SWT program

● Primary research with SWT past participants

● Primary research with employers participating in SWT program

● Analyses of secondary employment and economic data

The primary goals of the research activities were to:

● Provide a comprehensive review of the program, and the understanding of how the

program evolved in response to changes in regulatory and political environments.

● Understand the experiences of the SWT participants in terms of their satisfaction with

the program, personal and professional gains as a result of their participation in the

program and the extent to which the program achieves its public diplomacy goals.

● Assess experiences of employers participating in the program, including their overall

1 https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-published-undergraduate-charges-

sector-2016-17

https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-published-undergraduate-charges-sector-2016-17






satisfaction. The research of employers also sought to understand the reasons for

participation, as well as the impact of the program on their businesses both in terms of

cultural exchange and economic vitality.

● Estimate the economic impact of the program in terms of the contribution to the overall

economy.

● Model local economic and workforce characteristics to assess the impact of the SWT

program on local employment and to understand local workforce and economic factors

that influence the number of SWT placements in a geographic area.



Executive Summary The Alliance for International Exchange is an association of 90 international exchange

implementing organizations comprising the international educational and cultural exchange

community in the United States. SWT is one of the programs that the Alliance members

supports. The Alliance commissioned an independent research firm, EurekaFacts, to conduct a

comprehensive assessment of the SWT program.

The findings presented in the report are based on:

● The review of material documenting the SWT program as well as interviews

with representatives of sponsor organizations implementing the SWT program

in the United States.

● A survey of 2,800 SWT alumni was conducted in May 2017 and

included SWT participants from program years 2012 through 2016.

● A survey of 460 employers participating in the SWT program was also conducted

in May 2017.

● Personal interviews with SWT past participants and representatives of

current businesses participating in the program in The Dells in

Wisconsin, Ocean City in Maryland or the Jersey Shore in New Jersey.

● Analyses of reported placements of SWT participants in geographical areas, the

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and U.S. Census Bureau data for the

same areas. The analyses are based on the SWT placements during the last

five years (2012 to 2016) reported by Alliance members. These represent 60%

of all placements reported by the Department of State. Specifically, the analyses

modeled the relationship between the number of SWT program participants and

youth unemployment and separately the characteristics of the local workforce

and demographic characteristics of the areas of placement on the number of

SWT placements.

Review of the program concluded that for more than 50 years, the J-1 exchange visitor

programs, including the SWT program, have grown and changed in concert with U.S. foreign

policy priorities and initiatives. The SWT program is the largest U.S. public diplomacy program,

and has experienced unprecedented growth in the past 20 years. This growth led to a need for

increased oversight of the sponsor community by the State Department and other program

reforms to ensure positive program experiences for participants. The resulting reforms and

oversight appear to have had the intended result of refocusing the program on public diplomacy

objectives while assuring the safety and welfare of participants.

The findings from the survey of the past SWT participants reinforces the success of the reforms

and oversights discussed in the program review. Participants report high levels of overall

satisfaction with the program (91%). The majority of participants also report personal and

professional gains as a result of their participation. For example, 93.8% of participants believed

that the participation in the program will help their future careers. Most participants (91%) report

cultural exchange as their primary motivation for joining the program. Data also show that the

SWT program is achieving its public diplomacy goals. A majority of SWT (76.1%) alumni

reported that their opinion of the United States improved after participating in the program. They



also report making lasting friendships with American peers (94.3%) and most show a more

favorable attitude toward American people (74.1%) and culture (72%) in comparison to before

their visit.

Cultural exchange is also an important characteristic of the program to participating employers.

Nearly all employers (96.8%) believe that the infusion of international participants into their

workforce creates a better work climate for their local employees as well as a better service

experience for their customers. However, not surprisingly, the employers value the more

tangible contribution of the SWT participants to their businesses. Despite earnest attempts to

hire locally for seasonal help, almost all employers (96.8%) report seasonal labor shortages.

SWT participants thus fill the critical labor gap. Based on the survey data, the absence of SWT

participants would have a negative impact on employers in terms of revenue (50.8%), ability to

operate at full capacity (44.8%) and customer satisfaction (90%). More than a quarter of

employers surveyed (27.6%) in fact report that without the SWT program they would not be

open during the tourist season and a similar percentage (28.7%) report that they would have to

lay off some of their permanent staff.

Based on review of the BLS reports and data, the seasonal labor shortage can in part be

explained by the changing patterns in summer time employment by American youth. Those

enrolled in schools or colleges are increasingly placing more value on other summer time

activities like academic pursuits or internships. On the other hand, with an improving economy,

youth who are not enrolled in school are finding permanent year-round jobs and are also not

interested in seasonal employment. This pattern partly explains the reason why employers

surveyed might have difficulty finding seasonal employees locally.

The economic impact analysis estimated that SWT participants contribute roughly 500MM

dollars to the U.S. economy accounting for U.S. based program expenses (e.g., sponsor fees,

visas fees and health insurance) and wages earned during their participation in the program and

spent locally. A model looking at the relationship between the number of SWT participants and

local youth unemployment rates showed that the number of SWT participants had no

relationship with local youth unemployment rates, which are best explained by the overall

economic health of the geographic area. A separate model exploring the relationships between

workforce characteristics and the number of SWT placements showed that the number of SWT

placements are related to the factors indicative of a labor shortage. For example, more SWT

participants were placed in the areas with higher overall workforce participation, fewer residents

attending institutions of higher learning, and a lower percentage of workforce involved in the

hospitality industry. The results of this analysis reinforce the employers’ concerns with seasonal

labor shortages. It also suggests that the SWT program is unlikely to compete with American

jobs.



Key Findings SWT participants come to learn about and experience life in the U.S.

● Most (91%) SWT participants reported cultural exchange as their top reason

for participating in the program. In contrast, only 9% participants stated

learning specific work skills, gaining experience for a degree program, or

earning money as the top reasons for participating in the program.

SWT participants hold favorable views toward the SWT program.

● Nearly all (90.9%) SWT program participants reported being either satisfied (39.6%) or

very satisfied (51.3%) with their experience.

● Similarly, nearly all (93.8%) SWT participants indicated that they were either likely

(23.1%) or very likely (70.7%) to recommend the program to their friends.

● When asked about whether participants had already recommended the SWT

program to their friends, an overwhelming majority (98.0%) said yes.

SWT participants express positive opinions regarding the U.S., and indicate that their

overall perceptions of the U.S. improved after participating in the program.

● Overall, SWT participants reported a positive experience while in the U.S. A

majority (85.7%) of respondents indicated that their experience in the U.S. was

either very good (33.3%) or excellent (52.4%).

● After participating in the SWT program, individuals reported a positive change

in their views about several aspects of the U.S., including:

o The U.S. in general: Over three fourths (76.1%) of SWT participants

reported a positive change in views regarding the U.S.

o American culture: Slightly under three fourths (72.0%) of SWT

participants reported a positive change in their view of American

culture.

o American people: A similar percentage (74.1%) of SWT participants

reported a positive change in how they view American people.

o American companies: Over half (61.5%) of SWT participants reported a

positive change in how they perceive American companies.

o American way of doing business: A similar percentage (63.9%) of

SWT participants reported a higher opinion about how Americans

conduct business.

SWT participants gained better understanding of the U.S.

● Most participants (86.9%) agreed that the SWT experiences helped

improve their English.

● Nearly all (90.9%) agreed that they had a better understanding of American

culture, and many (79.3%) agreed they had gained a better understanding of

the American way of doing business.

SWT participants felt they obtained skills and knowledge that will help them in the future.

● Almost all (93.8%) SWT participants agreed or strongly agreed that the

experience would help them in the future.



● Most agreed or strongly agreed that the program provided a valuable work

experience (78.4%) and taught them specific work skills (78.6%).

● A majority (82.2%) of participants felt that their SWT experience would help their

career.

Currently employed SWT participants thought the SWT experience helped with their

career.

● Nearly two thirds (63.5%) of participants who were currently employed full

time stated that their SWT experience has helped somewhat or a lot in

obtaining their current job.

● A majority of SWT alumni reported that certain skills learned during the program,

such as learning to interact with people different from themselves (90.4%) and

being able to adjust to different situations/be more flexible (96.1%), helped

somewhat or a lot in obtaining their current job.

SWT alumni reported making friends with Americans and staying in touch with those

friends after they left the U.S.

● Nearly all (94.3%) SWT participants reported making friends with Americans.

● A majority (87.7%) of SWT participants who reported having made American

friends indicated that they kept in touch with some of them after they left the

U.S.

Employers are satisfied with the program.

● Nearly all employers (90.9%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with

the SWT Program.

● The majority (90.6%) said they would be likely or very likely to recommend the

program.

● Most employers (70.6%) said they would be very likely to recommend the

program to another business or organization in seasonal areas.

Employers feel that SWT participants positively contribute to the workplace.

● Nearly all (98.2%) employers reported that SWT program participants interact well or

very well with members of the community.

● A vast majority (92.1%) of employers agreed or strongly agreed that SWT

program participants contributed to a positive culture in the workplace.

● Most (96.8%) felt that SWT participants brought fresh ideas and innovative solutions.

According to employers participating in the SWT program, there is a seasonal labor

shortage and absence of the program would have a negative impact on business.

● Almost all (96.8%) employers reported experiencing a shortage of seasonal

workers, with more seasonal jobs available than workers to fill them.

● Half (50.8%) of the employers surveyed stated that the absence of SWT

participants would have a big negative impact on their revenues.

Participating employers indicated that their businesses would suffer without the SWT

program.



● One quarter (27.6%) of employers reported that it was likely or very likely that

they would not be able to stay open during the season.

● Roughly half (44.8%) of employers said that it was likely or very likely that

they would have to reduce hours of operation.

● Slightly over one quarter (28.7%) of employers reported that it was likely or very likely

that they would have to lay off permanent staff after the season.

SWT participants contribute to local economies:

• The total estimated contribution of SWT exchange visitor participants to the U.S.

economy in 2016 was about $509 million.

• That roughly equals $5,300 per participant.

The downward trend in youth employment is best explained by competing priorities of

American youth enrolled in school rather than the SWT program.

● BLS reports that summer work participation among American youth has been

declining consistently since 1990. Although the trend is affected by adverse

economic conditions, it does not recover after recessions.

● BLS reports higher summer school enrollment during the same time period.23

Similarly, a Pew Research report notes community volunteerism and internship

programs have become alternatives to seasonal employment.

● Whereas summer employment for youth not enrolled in school has also declined,

BLS notes that participation of this group in the workforce increased at the same

time. This finding suggests that youth not enrolled in school are more likely to be

employed in year- round work and therefore less likely to seek seasonal

employment.4

There was no statistical relationship between the number of SWT participants and youth

unemployment rates. That is, there is no evidence indicating that SWT participants

compete for local jobs.

● Regression analyses examining the factors influencing youth unemployment

rates showed no relationship between youth unemployment rates and the

number of SWT participants (standardized coefficient -.005 p=.342).

● Youth unemployment rates were related to indicators of a community’s

economic health such as the overall unemployment rate.

Analysis suggests that SWT participants supplement the existing workforce rather than

compete for existing jobs with local workers.

● Regression analysis examining the factors influencing areas where SWT

participants worked showed a relationship between the number of SWT

placements in a community and factors related to seasonal labor shortages.

o SWT placement was higher in locations with fewer people ages 18-24

enrolled in institutions of higher learning (standardized coefficient= -.01

2 https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/declining-teen-labor-force-participation.pdf 3 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/the-fading-of-the-teen-summer-job/ 4 https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/schools_out/

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/declining-teen-labor-force-participation.pdf

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/the-fading-of-the-teen-summer-job/

https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/schools_out/



p=.0001). Given the short-term nature of these jobs and that college

students are potential candidates for seasonal jobs, these findings show

that there are more SWT participants in areas where there are fewer

college students.

o There were more SWT participants in areas with higher workforce participation

(standardized coefficient= -.029, p=.001), suggesting higher levels of

competition with other businesses in similar industries for seasonal employees.

o SWT placement was positively related with commute time to work

(standardized coefficient= -.022, p=.001), meaning seasonal areas with

longer work commute times from neighboring cities had higher SWT

participation.



SWT Program Review Overview

The State Department’s SWT program allows college and university students enrolled full time

and pursuing studies at post-secondary accredited academic institutions located outside the

U.S. to come to the U.S. to share their culture and ideas with Americans through temporary

work and travel opportunities. It is currently the largest public diplomacy program in the U.S.,

bringing more than 100,000 participants annually for a four-month stay during their home

university summer break periods.

Summer Work Travel is one category of the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program (EVP), a program

first authorized by Congress following World War II. Operated by the Bureau of Educational and

Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. State Department, the EVP provides opportunities for around

300,000 foreign visitors per year to experience U.S. society and culture and engage with

Americans. The J-1 visa is issued in fifteen different categories, 13 of which include privately

funded programs that are implemented under the auspices of the State Department’s Office of

Private Sector Exchange. The State Department designates more than 1,500 for-profit, non-

profit, or federal, state, and local government entities to conduct such private-sector programs.

Exchange visitors on private sector programs may study, teach, research, share their

specialized skills, or receive on-the-job training for periods ranging from a few weeks to several

years. In addition to the 13 private-sector exchange categories, of which SWT is one, the J-1

visa program also includes two categories that are publicly funded: International Visitors and

Government Visitors.5

Through the SWT program, participants live and work in the US, gaining exposure to American

culture and society. Employment in seasonal temporary jobs enables students to underwrite the

cost of the program and cover their living expenses.6,7 The average cost to participate in the

SWT program is $2700, including all fees and air tickets.8 As a point of comparison, a year as

an international student at a US college or university averages $35,370 at a public institution

and $45,370 at a private institution.9

Exchange visitors improve their English skills, learn about American business practices and

work culture, and interact with American co-workers and customers through their day-to-day

work environment. Outside of their work hours, participants are encouraged to learn more about

American culture by getting involved in their communities. Program sponsors and employers

offer participants additional opportunities to gain a broader cultural understanding of the

5 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/J1-Visa-Fact-Sheet-2017.pdf 6 Guidance Directive 2013-02. Summer Work Travel Purpose and Placements. U.S. Department of

State. https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-02-swt-purpose-and-placements.pdf

Accessed 7/8/17. 7 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-02-swt-purpose-and-placements.pdf 8 Based on information gathered in March 2017 from program sponsors, we computed the average of all

costs including program fees, visa fees, government fees, health and accident insurance, and airfare. 9 https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-published-undergraduate-charges-

sector-2016-17

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/J1-Visa-Fact-Sheet-2017.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-02-swt-purpose-and-placements.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2013-02-swt-purpose-and-placements.pdf




EurekaFacts, LLC - August 22, 2017 10

American people and their customs and values through programs and events they organize.10

The SWT program engages American businesses as host employers. Host employers hire

workers to meet their needs for peak business seasons after demonstrating that those needs

cannot be met through local hires. Since the “summer” in SWT refers to the summer school

break for the participant, the program operates with winter arrivals, spring arrivals and summer

arrivals.11

SWT sponsor organizations are designated by the Department to operate the program

according to regulations the State Department has put in place to further public diplomacy aims

while ensuring the safety of SWT participants and certifying that the program does not displace

American workers. Sponsors are monitored by the State Department to ensure compliance with

these regulations.

The SWT program is a public-private partnership between designated sponsors and the Private

Sector Programs of the State Department. Students pay for the program, and their fees fund

sponsor costs for providing oversight and regulatory compliance. Students are tracked in the US

by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the Student Exchange Visitor

Information System (SEVIS) and pay a SEVIS user fee to fund the tracking activity. Part of this

SEVIS fee is transferred by DHS to State to pay for ECA costs of overseeing the private sector

exchanges.

How the Summer Work and Travel Program Operates

The Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (Fulbright-Hays) of 1961 authorizes the

Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the Department to conduct exchange programs “to

increase mutual understanding between the people of the U.S. and the people of other

countries by means of educational and cultural exchange; to strengthen the ties which unite us

with other nations by demonstrating the educational and cultural interests, developments, and

achievements of the people of the U.S. and other nations, and the contributions being made

toward a peaceful and more fruitful life for people throughout the world; to promote international

cooperation for educational and cultural advancement; and thus to assist in the development of

friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the U.S. and the other countries of the

world.” 12 The ECA oversees both government funded and private sector programs under the

EVP using the J-1 visa. Private-sector programs make up about 85% of the exchange activity,

amounting to nearly 300,000 exchanges annually. Of these, more than 100,000 are in the SWT

category.13

Many entities work to ensure a successful SWT program.

● Sponsors: U.S. organizations approved by the Department to manage the SWT program.

● Overseas Agencies: Work in partnership with sponsors to select the right students for

10 https://j1visa.state.gov/events/ 11 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-contentcont ent/uploads/2016/11/November-3-2016-Program-Date-Chart.pdf 12 https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/fulbrighthaysact.pdf 13 https://j1visa.state.gov/basics/facts-and-figures/

https://j1visa.state.gov/events/

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/November-3-2016-Program-Date-Chart.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/fulbrighthaysact.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/basics/facts-and-figures/



the program.

● Employers: U.S. companies that offer jobs to international student participants.

● Participants: International students who come to the U.S. for cultural exchange, work and travel for a period of four months.

Private Sector Programs Division: Office in ECA at the Department. There are four offices

within the Private Sector Exchange Division with responsibilities for the SWT program: the

Offices of Designation, Exchange Coordination and Compliance, Private Sector Exchange

Administration, and Policy and Program Support. These offices also oversee other exchange

visitor programs the ECA administers. Together, these offices review sponsors for designation

approval; establish regulatory standards; conduct necessary supervision and co-ordination of

the program sponsors; and determine the possible number of program participants annually.

Sponsor Profile and Responsibilities There are currently 40 State Department-designated SWT sponsors.14 From a review of their

websites, they range from 7 to 70 years of experience facilitating exchanges. The average years

working with exchange visitors is 36 years.

One third of sponsors are non-profit organizations with an articulated mission involving the value

of cultural exchange to individuals and countries. Most non-profit sponsors work with many

categories of J-1 participants and have been operating for 25 years or longer.

Two-thirds of sponsors are for-profit companies. Most of these also articulate a mission

involving the value of cultural exchange to countries and individuals. Of this group of 27

sponsors, a third operate closely to the non-profit model above, pursuing exchanges in most

categories. Another third seems to operate with only SWT and trainee/intern categories across

a range of employers. And yet another third has a narrow scope and provide J-1 staffing for a

particular company/camp or industry (e.g. Walt Disney, Camp Counselors USA, United Work

and Travel/American Pool).

Designated U.S. sponsors must run their SWT program under the regulations contained in 22

CFR 62.32.15 U.S. The Department of State designation grants the sponsor authorization to

issue J-1 visa applications to international students. The sponsor is held accountable for fulfilling

its responsibilities according to the J-1 visa regulations. The sponsor, as the entity that contracts

with the Overseas Agency recruiting participants, and with the employer offering a job to a

participant, must ensure that the overseas agent and the employer fulfill their responsibilities.

The regulatory framework16 outlines requirements for:

• Participant recruitment and selection

• Participant orientation and care in the U.S.

14 https://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply/sponsor-

search/?program=Summer%20Work%20Travel&state=any 15 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-

bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=1bc531bf257789e45b3049bff8b50d64&r=PART&n=22y1.0.1.7.35#se22.1.6

2_132 16 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title22-vol1/pdf/CFR-2012-title22-vol1-sec62-32.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply/sponsor-search/?program=Summer%20Work%20Travel&state=any

https://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply/sponsor-search/?program=Summer%20Work%20Travel&state=any

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=1bc531bf257789e45b3049bff8b50d64&r=PART&n=22y1.0.1.7.35#se22.1.62_132





• Employer recruitment and vetting and job placement

• Cross-cultural activities

Overseas Agents Profile and Responsibilities U.S.-based sponsors contract with overseas agents to promote the program and to select

suitable candidates for the program. Overseas agents are responsible for tasks such as:

distributing information and application materials, screening for English language proficiency,

verifying applicant information, assisting participants with navigating the visa application

process, and help with making travel arrangements. Overseas agents will help match

participants with available jobs identified by the sponsor, often preparing participants for live or

virtual job fair interviews. Most overseas agents are also responsible for conducting a pre-

departure orientation and serve as a home-country emergency contact resource. Overseas

agents collect a program fee from participants, and remit an agreed-on portion of that fee to the

U.S. sponsor to pay for sponsor administrative costs and medical insurance, retaining the

balance to pay for their costs to recruit, screen, and prepare participants for their exchange.

Employer Profile and Responsibilities Most SWT participants are placed with employers in beach and resort towns, ski resorts, and

other vacation and tourist destinations. They work in hospitality, food service, retail,

amusements, aquatics, or other casual labor jobs.17 Employers run the gamut from small family

restaurants to fast-food chains, bed and breakfast inns to hotel chains, and boardwalk

amusement piers to multi-state amusement park companies, ski resorts, and National Park

Service concessionaires. Sponsors often work with the same employers each year.

When recruiting and vetting businesses to be SWT-approved employers, sponsors ensure that

all jobs are seasonal and will not displace American workers. Jobs must provide interaction with

co-workers or customers.

Employers commit to guarantee a minimum number of hours of work per week and pay the

prevailing wage or minimum wage. Jobs cannot involve any type of patient care or physical

handling or manipulation of clients, factory labor, or driving. Employers must show a

commitment to the cross-cultural aims of the exchange visitor program.

Participant Profile and Responsibilities Participants are post-secondary school students enrolled in and actively pursuing a degree or

other full-time course of study at an accredited classroom-based, post-secondary educational

institution outside the U.S. They also must be proficient in English.18 Participants hail from 120

17 To determine where jobs are located, we reviewed the job listing pages of sponsors and their overseas

agents. Jobs were located in beach towns, resort areas, national parks, and tourist destinations with jobs

in the hospitality, amusements, food service, and retail industries. See, https://www.ciee.org/work-travel-

usa/students/get-started/job/, https://www.studentagency.sk/pracovni-a-au-pair-pobyty/USA/Work-and-

travel/, https://www.ckm.sk/files/WAT-USA-2017/Coastal-Hospitality-Virginia-Beach-VA-a-Nags-Head-

NC-2017.pdf, and https://j1ireland.com/jobs/.

18 https://j1visa.state.gov/programs/summer-work-travel

https://www.ciee.org/work-travel-usa/students/get-started/job/

https://www.ciee.org/work-travel-usa/students/get-started/job/

https://www.studentagency.sk/pracovni-a-au-pair-pobyty/USA/Work-and-travel/

https://www.studentagency.sk/pracovni-a-au-pair-pobyty/USA/Work-and-travel/

https://www.ckm.sk/files/WAT-USA-2017/Coastal-Hospitality-Virginia-Beach-VA-a-Nags-Head-NC-2017.pdf

https://www.ckm.sk/files/WAT-USA-2017/Coastal-Hospitality-Virginia-Beach-VA-a-Nags-Head-NC-2017.pdf

https://j1ireland.com/jobs/

https://j1visa.state.gov/programs/summer-work-travel



different countries, with more than 4,000 participants coming from Jamaica, Romania, Turkey,

Peru, China, Bulgaria, Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine, Ireland, and Serbia19.

Once accepted to the program, participants are issued a DS-2019 form which allows them to

apply at a U.S. Consulate for the J-1 exchange visitor visa. The consular official has the final

say over whether the participant will be granted a visa. The participant typically must show

sufficient ties to their home country for the consular official to be satisfied of their intent to return

home at the end of the program.

Participants can find a job or be matched with a job through the sponsor and its overseas agent.

Participants pay for their housing and commuting costs. Sponsors look at the housing situation

in the area to ensure that participants can secure safe and affordable housing within a

reasonable walking, biking, or public transit commute from the job site.

Sponsors support their participants by helping them to secure social security cards, by ensuring

participants understand their rights as employees, and by being available to resolve

participant/employer disputes. Sponsors also initiate contact with participants on a monthly

basis to monitor the program. Participants must accept this contact and report any problems to

the sponsor. Participants must keep the sponsor informed of their work place and place of

residence.

Program Time Line and History

Exchange visitor programs have been operating in the U.S. for nearly 100 years, since the end

of World War I. For more than 50 years, the J-1 exchange visitor programs, including the SWT

program, have grown and changed in concert with U.S. foreign policy priorities and initiatives.

While participant numbers specifically for the SWT program are not available as far back as 50

years, we do know that the number of J-1 visas issued for all exchange visitors in 1966 was

49,550.20 By 2016, it was 339,712.21

1919-1940 Several non-governmental organizations formed following WWI to foster exchanges

to create understanding among nations.

1945-47 Non-governmental organizations involved in exchanges before WWII resume and

new NGOs formed to facilitate exchanges and to support cultural, orientation, and

placement activities of government-sponsored exchanges.

1948 Smith-Mundt Act passed by Congress to “promote a better understanding of the U.S.

in other countries, and to increase mutual understanding” between Americans and

people in other countries. 22

19 Calendar Year 2016 Summer Work Travel Program Top Sending 20 Countries. Presentation at

Department of State Annual Sponsor meeting 3/13/17. 20 http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019025.pdfhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019025.pdf 21 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-

Statistics/NIVDetailTables/FY16%20NIV%20Detail%20Table.pdfhttps://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas

/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/NIVDetailTables/FY16%%20NIV%%20Detail%%20Table.pdf 22 https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/177574.pdf

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019025.pdf

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/NIVDetailTables/FY16%20NIV%20Detail%20Table.pdf




https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/177574.pdf



1961 Congress passes the Fulbright-Hays Act to increase mutual understanding between

the people of the U.S. and the people of other countries.23 The act authorized the

formation of the Exchange Visitor Program, and the J-1 visa. The Bureau of

Educational and Cultural Affairs oversees the program and is authorized to designate

non-profit organizations to execute the program. Initial designations were for

academic programs, but gradually expand to other categories. Most exchanges are

with Europe and Latin America.

1963 Summer Work and Travel (SWT) J-1 category established.

1966 49,550 J-1 visas issued to exchange visitors.24

1972 President Nixon’s trip to China; cultural exchanges from China and Japan increase.


1983 President’s Youth Exchange Initiative created by Ronald Reagan to promote increase

in exchanges. Many current sponsor incorporations date from this time.26


1989 Berlin Wall falls – exchanges with former Eastern Bloc countries commence.


1991 Dissolution of Soviet Union.

1992 Exchanges with newly independent states (NIS) of the Soviet Union commence.

1997 Exchange visitor J-1 visas reach 179,598 issued.29

2001 Exchange visitor J-1 visas reach 261,769 issued.30

2002 Exchange visitor visas drop to 253,841 following 9/11 and stay flat until 2005. New

initiatives are started to increase exchanges from Muslim-majority countries.31

23

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/fulbrighthaysact.pdfhttps://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/

ope/iegps/fulbrighthaysact.pdf 24 http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019025.pdf 25 http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123457.pdf 26 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42131 27 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-

Statistics/NIVClassIssuedDetailed/NIVClassIssued-DetailedFY1987-1991.pdf 28 Ibid. 29 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-

Statistics/NIVClassIssuedDetailed/NIVClassIssued-DetailedFY1997-2001.pdf 30 Ibid. 31 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY06AnnualReportTableXVIB.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/fulbrighthaysact.pdf

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED019025.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/123457.pdf

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42131

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-Statistics/NIVClassIssuedDetailed/NIVClassIssued-DetailedFY1987-1991.pdf




https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY06AnnualReportTableXVIB.pdf



2006 Numbers rebound and grow to 309,951 J-1 visas issued.32 129,219 are for SWT.33

2008 Exchange visitor visas total 359,447.34 SWT numbers peak at 153,372.35 US enters

economic recession.

2009 Exchange visitor visas drop to 313,597.36 SWT numbers drop to 101,312.37

2011-2012 Department of State begins to issue regulatory changes for SWT program; program

participation capped at 2011 participation level of 109,189.38

2016 Exchange visitor visas total 339,712.39 SWT participants total 101,061.40

Program Growth Leads to Calls for More Oversight The SWT program grew dramatically over the past 20 years. Student participants swelled from

fewer than 20,00041 in 1996 to 56,000 in 2000 and 88,500 in 2005. Participation peaked in 2008

to nearly 153,00042 before the recession caused it to sag. In 2010 there were 132,000

participants and 103,000 in 2011. In 2011, the ECA limited the program’s growth.

As early as 1990, however, the General Accounting Office (GAO) expressed concerns about the

ability of the private-sector exchanges office to oversee the growing J-1 exchange visitor

program. The 1990 report indicated that J-1 visa regulations were too vague and that the office

overseeing programs and sponsors did not keep accurate records nor did it subject sponsors to

regular review. 43

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review in 2000 of the DOS management of

the J-1 exchange visitor program. While the report focused on the trainee category and not the

SWT program, it expressed an overall finding that the EVP office was unable to effectively

administer and monitor the exchange visitor program primarily because of inadequate

resources. It also expressed concern that lax monitoring had created an atmosphere in which

32 Ibid. 33 Calendar Years 2005-2016 Summer Work Travel Participation Levels. Presentation at Department of

State Annual Sponsor meeting 3/13/17. 34 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY10AnnualReport-TableXVI_B.pdf . 35 Calendar Years 2005-2016 Summer Work Travel Participation Levels. 36 Nonimmigrant Visas Issued by Classification (Including Crewlist Visas and Border Crossing Cards)

Fiscal Years 2006-2010. 37 Calendar Years 2005-2016 Summer Work Travel Participation Levels. 38 Ibid. 39 https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant-

Statistics/NIVDetailTables/FY16%20NIV%20Detail%20Table.pdf 40 Calendar Years 2005-2016 Summer Work Travel Participation Levels. 41 https://oig.state.gov/system/files/217892.pdf p. 22 42 Calendar Years 2005-2016 Summer Work Travel Participation Levels. 43 http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/148648.pdf

https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/FY10AnnualReport-TableXVI_B.pdf



https://oig.state.gov/system/files/217892.pdf




program regulations could easily be ignored and/or abused.44

The GAO released another report in October 2005, this time including the SWT category. The

GAO recognized that exchange programs were an effective way to expose citizens of other

countries to the American people and culture, but noted concerns in previous GAO and OIG

reports about program management which had not been addressed by the State Department

and noted that there was a risk for abuse of the SWT program. The GAO report said that

program sponsors were also asking for updates to the regulations and for consistent

enforcement. The report called for strong action to enhance overall management and monitoring

of the SWT and trainee programs, including fully implementing a compliance unit to monitor

exchange activities; updating and amending regulations; and developing strategies to obtain

data on overstays, program abuses, and other risks associated with the program. The State

Department acknowledged these weaknesses.45

Other than the government’s own GAO and OIG reports, no other comprehensive studies of the

SWT program appear to have been conducted.

Program growth did result in increased reports of program-related problems being reported in

the press. A December 2010 Associated Press (AP) article reported alleged abuses and

exploitation of participants in the 2010 SWT program. The AP report was based on interviews

with 70 of the 120,000 participants in the program that year and focused on participants who

were placed in inappropriate jobs, offered low wages, faced unexpected costs, and who were

placed in substandard housing.46

At the same time, program growth fueled private-sector concerns that participants were taking

jobs away from Americans. A briefing paper by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in July 2011

tried to make that case, citing a perceived lack of protection for U.S. workers; the Department’s

overbroad authority to create new guest worker programs; perceived financial incentives for visa

sponsors and their partners; and recapping the GAO and OIG reports of the program’s flawed

system of management, data collection, over-sight, compliance, and enforcement.47 The EPI

report concluded that “(i)f the Exchange Visitor Program is to continue, the State Department

should provide evidence demonstrating how the country benefits culturally and educationally

from having 300,000 workers enter the country each year to take jobs that young Americans

desperately need. Such action cannot be justified without any showing that U.S. workers are

unavailable, and without the basic protection of a prevailing wage to prevent against adverse

effects on the wages of U.S. workers.”48 In its December 2011 report Cheap Labor as Cultural

Exchange, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) called on the Department to reform the

SWT program so that it would advance the nation’s foreign policy goals without seriously

damaging the labor market for young Americans. CIS believed the program was causing

44 https://oig.state.gov/system/files/8539.pdf 45 http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248145.pdf 46 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/06/ap-impact-fails-tackle-student-visa-abuses.html 47 http://www.epi.org/files/2011/BriefingPaper317.pdf 48 Ibid.

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/8539.pdf


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/06/ap-impact-fails-tackle-student-visa-abuses.html

http://www.epi.org/files/2011/BriefingPaper317.pdf



damage primarily by the failure of the Department to reform its record of weak regulation and

indifference to the domestic labor market.49

Other studies, however, showed a trend to lower youth employment not related to SWT and

posited that fewer American students were seeking traditional summer jobs due to other factors

such changes in the educational system calendar, requirements to perform volunteer service in

order to graduate, and expectations for college students to secure internships in their intended

field.50

SWT Regulatory Changes The Department began ramping up program oversight and compliance of the SWT program in

2010. It announced in January 2011 a new pilot program targeting several countries where

there had been instances of abuse in jobs offered. New requirements articulated the types of

prohibited job placements; increased requirements for employer vetting; and required hiring of

participants prior to issuance of DS-2019 forms.51

The State Department issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) on the SWT program in April 2011 to

go into effect with the 2012 program participants. It required hiring prior to DS-2019 issuance for

all participants from non-visa waiver countries and expanded the employer-vetting requirements

from the pilot program to all placements. It also stipulated that jobs must pay the prevailing

federal and state minimum wage and increased vetting of overseas agents. In addition,

sponsors were required to have monthly personal contact with all participants to assess and

assure their well-being.52

After reviewing the results of the pilot program for 2011, the State Department reported that the

number of program complaints received remained unacceptably high and included reports of

improper work placements, fraudulent job offers, job cancellations on participant arrival in the

U.S., inappropriate work hours, and problems regarding housing and transportation. During the

summer of 2011 there were problems with SWT participants placed in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a

situation that received widespread press coverage, reporting problems with housing and work

placements. To address these issues, the State Department issued a cap on SWT participation

levels tied to the 2011 actual numbers and placed a moratorium on new-sponsor designations.53

In May 2012, a revised interim final rule was issued, effective for the summer 2012 season that

outlined additional regulations on employer vetting, appropriate job placements, including

requirements to assure seasonality of jobs and to ensure that jobs provide contact with U.S.

citizens. Also addressed was sponsor responsibility to assess the availability, suitability, and

affordability of housing and local transportation to the job site.54 In 2013, further guidance was

given regarding supervision of lifeguards and change of employer.

49 http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/SWT-Report.pdf 50 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/the-fading-of-the-teen-summer-job/ 51 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/pilot-guidelines-summer-work-travel-program-1-5-

2011.pdf 52 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dos_frdoc_0001-1491-1-.pdf 53 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SWT-Freeze-notice-11-7-2011.pdf 54 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-swt-ifr.pdf

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/SWT-Report.pdf


https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/pilot-guidelines-summer-work-travel-program-1-5-2011.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/pilot-guidelines-summer-work-travel-program-1-5-2011.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dos_frdoc_0001-1491-1-.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SWT-Freeze-notice-11-7-2011.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-swt-ifr.pdf



Program management audits to demonstrate compliance with regulations were mandated in a

final rule for Subpart A of the J-1 regulations, issued in January 2015. The final rule also

required disclosure of itemized fees and costs for program applicants.55

In January 2017, the State Department published a Proposed Final Rule that would consolidate

the changes from previous interim rules and guidance directives.56 In promulgating this and

previous rulemakings, the State Department says it “continues to advance a comprehensive

rulemaking strategy to: (i) Protect the health, safety, and welfare of exchange visitors on this

important program; (ii) respond to issues identified during monitoring and ongoing oversight; (iii)

articulate consistent and robust minimum standards for program administration; (iv) prioritize the

quality of the exchange visitor experience; and (v) fortify the program’s purpose as an important

U.S. public diplomacy tool.”57

Sponsor Reports on Implementation of Regulatory Changes As part of our engagement, we interviewed four representative program sponsors to get their

feedback on the impact on the program and their organization of implementing the regulatory

changes.

Overall, sponsors were very pleased with the impact of the regulatory changes. One impact is

that it levels the playing field among competing organizations. Before the reforms, it was left to

each individual sponsor to do as much or as little as they could get away with regarding

oversight of their program. The new employer-vetting requirements alone required staffing

increases for most sponsors to get the required business license paperwork stipulated by the

new regulations. Now that all sponsors have had to raise their program operations to a common

standard, they report that the overall program is much better.

The increased employer-vetting requirements also allowed sponsors to strengthen relationships

with employers who embrace the cross-cultural goals of the program, allowed for stronger on-

going orientation for others, while eliminating those who were not willing to comply with the

program requirements.

Sponsors also increased vetting of overseas agents under the new regulations, and report

releasing some who were not promoting the program as an exchange program or may have

been adding additional fee charges to participants.

Sponsors reported the unanticipated benefit of working collaboratively with other sponsors—

normally their competitors—along with community organizations and the State Department to

deliver on the cross-cultural and orientation components of the program at the local level in the

U.S. They have reported this as a positive outcome.

Some sponsors narrowed their organizational footprint to enhance their ability to support

participants with on-ground staff. They have increased on-ground local coordinators and head

office site visit monitoring trips and employer visits. With 30-day checks on participants,

55 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Subpart-A-Federal-Register-publication-

8893_PublishedFR_10-6-2014.pdf 56 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/9522_PublishedFR_01-12-2017.pdf 57 Ibid.

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Subpart-A-Federal-Register-publication-8893_PublishedFR_10-6-2014.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Subpart-A-Federal-Register-publication-8893_PublishedFR_10-6-2014.pdf

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/9522_PublishedFR_01-12-2017.pdf



sponsors can monitor participant employer experience, and regional, housing, and

transportation issues to detect problems or to make sure things going well. As a result of this

monitoring, many sponsors have stopped placement in areas where the local housing is too

expensive or bicycle travel too dangerous.

Although sponsors have had to increase the cost of the program to the participant in order to

add staffing and program components to come into compliance with reforms, they report that

demand for program has remained high and participants have been able to bear the higher

costs. And although many participants were first attracted to the program because of the

potential to earn money while they were here, through better screening and orientation,

participants now understand that the primary focus of the program is cultural exchange.

GAO Report Cites Program Improvements The GAO released a report in February 2015 that found that the State Department had

successfully strengthened program requirements and expanded its oversight to better ensure

the health, safety, and welfare of SWT participants. Incident report review found that there were

few complaints and incidents in the 2014 program year. The GAO recommended that additional

study should be conducted to assess cultural exchange activity and fees paid to overseas

agents.58 Both of these items are included in the Proposed Final Rule published January 2017.59

The report noted that by allowing large numbers of young, educated people—approximately

79,000 in 2014—to experience life in the U.S. each year and to return home to share their

experiences, the SWT program offers the potential to strengthen U.S. relationships abroad and

further U.S. public diplomacy.60

Conclusion For more than 50 years, the J-1 exchange visitor programs, including the SWT program, have grown

and changed in concert with U.S. foreign policy priorities and initiatives. The SWT program is the

largest U.S. public diplomacy program, and has experienced unprecedented growth in the past 20

years. This growth led to a need for increased oversight of the sponsor community by the State

Department and other program reforms ensure positive program experiences for participants. The

resulting reforms and oversight appear to have had the intended result of refocusing the program on

public diplomacy objectives while assuring the safety and welfare of participants.

58 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-265 59 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/9522_PublishedFR_01-12-2017.pdf

60 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-265

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-265

https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/9522_PublishedFR_01-12-2017.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-265



Participant Alumni Survey: Detailed Findings

Methodology An online survey of SWT alumni was administered on May 4,

2017. A reminder invitation was sent to participants on May 11,

2017, and the survey was closed on May 16, 2017.

The survey covered topics such as primary reasons for

participation in the program, personal and professional impact of

the program on participants, overall experience in the program,

and the impact of the program on participants’ perspective of

American life and culture.

A total 3,025 alumni completed the survey. Survey data was

reviewed and cleaned to include only valid survey responses. For

example, the dataset was cleaned to remove participants who

completed the survey in 10% half the time it took to complete the

online questionnaire, on average61. This ensured that participants

did not complete the survey without reading the questions and

options fully.

The final sample size for the SWT alumni survey was 2,800.

Respondents to the survey participated in the program between

2012 and 2016.

Participant Characteristics Countries of Citizenship Based on the data received by the Alliance members, SWT

alumni represented 185 countries. The top countries of citizenship

were:

61 The time it took respondents to complete the survey, when survey completion occurred over the course

of days, was taken into consideration when calculating the mean. Exclusions were based on the standard

deviations of mean completion time.

o Jamaica (9.6%) o Philippines (5.0%)

o Romania (8.4%) o Serbia (5.0%)

o Bulgaria (8.1%) o China (4.9%)

o Ukraine (6.1%) o Turkey (4.1%)

Participants

represented 185

countries.

Top country of

citizenship:

Jamaica.

Top county of

placement:

Columbia County,

WI.

Almost half of SWT

alumni are students.

32% work full time.

Among those

working full time,

39% are managers

or above.

For most, SWT was

their first exchange

program.

PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS



Placement Between 2012 and 2016 SWT participants worked in nearly every state in the nation.

Placements were higher in the coastal resort areas and tourist destinations away from the

coasts.

o Columbia County, Wisconsin (6%) o Cape May County, New Jersey (2%)

o Erie Country, Ohio (3%) o Virginia Beach City, Virginia (2%)

o Worcester Country, Maryland (3%) o Davidson County, Tennessee (1%)

o Horry County, South Carolina (2%) o Williamsburg City, Virginia (1%)

Figure 1. Map of SWT Participant Placement

Participation in Other Exchange Programs In addition to the SWT program, a small proportion of participants also participated in several J-

1 exchange visitor programs.

The category with the largest proportion of participation from SWT alumni was college and

university student programs (7.7%); approximately 5% of participants (4.8%) also participated in

either international visitor or trainee programs (see Table 1).

Blank: 100 or less; Light Green: 101 – 1,000; Dark Green: 1,001 – 16,121



Table 1. STW Alumni Participation in Other J-1 Exchange Visitor Programs

Other J-1 Exchange Visitor Programs %

College and University Student 7.7%

International Visitor 2.4%

Trainee 2.4%

Camp Counselor 1.8%

Secondary School Student 1.1%

Teacher 1.1%

Au Pair 1.0%

Short-Term Scholar 0.9%

Specialist 0.6%

Government Visitor 0.5%

Intern 0.5%

Physician 0.3%

Professor and Research Scholar 0.3%

I did not participate in another program 81.9%

A vast majority (81.9%) of participants did not participate in another J-1 exchange visitor

program compared to those who did (20.6%). For the majority of participants (85.5%),

participation in the SWT program was also their first trip to the U.S.

Employment Status About one third (32.1%) of SWT alumni who completed the survey report working full time

(Figure 2). Nearly half (48.2%) of SWT alumni who completed the survey said that they are

attending a college or university, with 10.0% reporting that they are pursuing an advanced

degree. The other category accounts for SWT alumni who are self-employed, have been

attending university and working, or doing an internship.

Figure 2. Employment Status

48.2%

32.1%

8.1% 6.0% 3.6% 1.9%

Student Work full time Unemployed,looking for work

Work part time Unemployed Other

Employment



Industry of Employment More than one third (34.3%) of SWT participants currently work in the service industry (Table 2).

The service industry category includes work in information technology, travel, retail, real-estate,

and agriculture. Thirteen percent of participants work in finance and 9% in education, which

includes education for children and older populations.

Table 2. Type of Business or Organization in Which Participant Currently Employed

Business or Organization n %

Service 316 34.3%

Finance 120 13.0%

Education 81 8.8%

Science 72 7.8%

Media 72 7.8%

Manufacturing 46 5.0%

Government 35 3.8%

Health 26 2.8%

Non-Government Organization (NGO) 21 2.3%

Law 11 1.2%

Sports 6 0.7%

Other62 116 12.6%

Professional Level in Business or Organization When participants were asked to describe their professional level in their business or

organization, more than two-thirds responded with either Entry Level (36.0%) or Specialist

(35.0%) (Figure 3). The remainder (29.0%) have achieved a level of a Manager or above.

62 “Other” category consists of SWT alumni who mainly work in the culture, tourism, and entertainment

industry.



Figure 3. Professional Status of Participant

Program Experience Participant Satisfaction Nearly all (91%) SWT program participants reported being either satisfied (40%) or very

satisfied (51%) with their experience. When participants were asked to rate certain aspects of

the SWT program, nearly 90% of participants described the interactions with their fellow SWT

alumni as either good or excellent (88.6%). Nearly 90 % of participants also rated their

interactions with American workers (87.1%) and their interactions with customers (87.9%) as

good or excellent.

Similarly, nearly all (94%) SWT participants indicated that they were either likely (23.1%) or very

likely (70.7%) to recommend the program to their friends (see Appendix A, Table A.1). When

those who were likely to recommend were asked whether participants had already

recommended the SWT program to their friends, an overwhelming majority (98.0%) said yes

(Table A.2).

Qualitative interviews with SWT alumni echoed participants’ high levels of satisfaction with the

program as seen in the survey results:

[SWT is] a real experience that is no match with anything you can do with other programs

(SWT participant, 2015).

[The US Department of State] should continue the program… every student should be able

to try this, to grow and get a better understanding of things and learn to be on their own.


It was amazing and, if I could do it again, in a heartbeat, I would (SWT participant, 2016).

Proportions reflect a professional level of manager and above.

36.0% 35.0%

11.0%8.0%

5.0%3.0% 3.0%

Entry level Specialist Manager Supervisor JuniorExecutive

Owner Executive

Professional Level



Motivation for Participation and Benefits Cultural Exchange When SWT participants were asked to state their top reason

for participating in the SWT program, more than one third

(36.0%) said it was to experience living in a different culture

(Figure 4). Additionally, 18.2% of SWT alumni said that

improving English was a top priority for them as well. Other

reasons related to cultural exchange such as visiting the U. S.,

learning to interact with people of different cultures, and

learning about the American way of doing business were

mentioned by 37.1% of the participants. In contrast, earning

money was mentioned as a top reason for participating in the

SWT program by only 3.1% of the participants. Gaining work

experience or learning specific work skills were also mentioned

by a small percentage (5.1%) of participants as the top reason

for joining SWT program. Qualitative interviews confirmed

cultural exchange as a top reason for participating in SWT. As

one former participant said:

I really just wanted this experience. My parents had never done anything like this, and I

thought it was a great way to experience a different culture and give me memories I could

cherish forever. (SWT participant, 2012 and 2013)

Figure 4. Reasons for Participation in SWT

The degree of importance participants assigned to their specific reasons for joining the program

align with those top reasons for doing so. Results show a large proportion of participants

(74.6%) stating the experience of living in a different culture as very important (Figure 5, Table

A.3).

36.0%

18.2%

16.4%

15.5%

5.4%

3.3%

3.1%

2.0%

Experience living in a different culture

Improving English

Visiting United States

Learning how to interact with people from differentcultures

Learning about the American way of doing business

Gaining work experience required for my degreeprogram

Earning money

Learning specific work skills

Top Reasons for Participation in SWT

Cultural exchange or

improving English was

mentioned as the top

reason for joining the

program by over 90%

of participants. Few

participants joined the

program to earn

money or to learn

specific skills.

REASONS FOR SWT PARTICPATION



Figure 5. Importance Factors in Participating in the SWT Program

Many participants (67.9%) found the process of learning how to interact with people of different

cultures as very important as well. Ninety-one percent of SWT alumni also thought visiting the

U.S. was important or very important to their decision to participate in the SWT program. On the

other hand, few participants rated earning money as important or very important in comparison

to other reasons. Similarly, fewer participants rated gaining work experience or learning specific

skills as important or very important. This data shows that participants decide to be a part of the

SWT program not solely for financial reasons. Opportunities to engage with people from a

different culture and to develop skills to operate in an increasingly diverse world were more

important drivers in their decision making.

Impact on Future Career Options Participants were asked how much they think the SWT experience helped their career and a

vast majority (82.2%) selected that it helped somewhat or a lot (Table 3).

Table 3. Participant Perception on Whether SWT Will Help Career

How much do you think your SWT experience will help…

Will not help at all

Will help a little

Will help somewhat

Will help a lot

In your career % 5.1% 12.8% 38.4% 43.8%

n 96 243 729 832

SWT alumni were also asked questions regarding what they learned during their SWT program

experience. As shown in Figure 6, nearly all participants agreed or strongly agreed that they

learned to better interact with people different from themselves (93.2%) and had experiences

that will help them in the future (93.8%). Additionally, a large majority of participants also agreed

or strongly agreed that the SWT program helped them adjust to different situations (92.5%) and

become more independent (93.1%). Although many thought they gained valuable work

experience (78.4%) or learned specific work skills (78.6%), they were less likely to agree with

those statements (see also Table A.4).

9.5% 8.1%0.5% 0.9%

13.4% 9.5% 1.5%

32.1%8.1% 17.4% 3.0% 5.8% 20.0% 27.0%

7.1%

17.3%

82.3%74.6%

96.5% 93.2%

66.6% 63.5%

91.4%

50.6%

ImprovingEnglish

LearningAmerican way

of doingbusiness

Experienceliving indifferentculture

Learning howto interact

with people ofdifferentculture

Learningspecific work

skills

Earningmoney

Visiting UnitedStates

Gaining workexperience for

degree

How important were the following for deciding to participate in SWT program?

Not Important Somewhat important Important



Figure 6. What SWT Participants Learned or Experienced During the Program

Qualitative interviews further highlighted the skills and knowledge gained from SWT

participation. For example, one participant remarked on the skills gained in teamwork.

Professionally, I learned to work in a team because that is most of the job… everything is

teamwork and I think that is very important (SWT participant, 2016).

93.2%

78.6%

78.4%

88.8%

74.3%

92.5%

93.1%

93.8%

83.7%

84.1%

80.6%

82.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%100.0%

To better interact with people different from me

Specific work skills

Valuable work experience

More confidence

My own culture

Adjust to different situations

More independence

Experiences that will help me in the future

To work as part of a team

How to solve problems

How to manage my time

How to manage my money

Disagree/ Strongly Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree/ Strongly Agree



In addition to specific work skills, participants also remarked

on more general and transferable skills gained through the

program such as intercultural communication, self-reliance,

and being more engaged in their communities through

activities such as volunteering.

[SWT] helped me improve my English, [and] to have more

leadership skills that can help me a lot. [SWT] also gave me

different skills to practice in my daily life, to be more

independent, to help other people, to participate in more

volunteer activities, to have an open mind, to open my eyes to

other things [and] people (SWT participant, 2016).

The work and travel expanded my communication skills to be

able to connect with whoever I want no matter what they do or

where they live (SWT participant, 2015).

Impact on Current Career Participants who were currently employed full time were asked

whether their SWT experience helped them get the job they

currently have. The results show that nearly two thirds of all

participants said their SWT experience has helped somewhat and

has helped a lot (63.5%) compared to those who selected has not

helped at all or has helped a little (36.5%) (Table 4).

Table 4. Participant Perception on Whether SWT Helped Obtain Current Job

How much do you think your SWT experience helped you…

Has not helped at all

Has helped a little

Has helped somewhat

Has helped a lot

Get the job you currently have % 15.8% 20.7% 31.3% 32.2%

n 142 186 282 290

When participants were asked what specific skills helped them get their current job, similar

results were found as for SWT participants not currently employed.

Specifically, over 90% of SWT alumni currently employed thought that their experience in the

program helped them:

• Learn to interact with people different from themselves.

• Become more independent.

• Become more confident.

• Learn to adjust to different situations/more flexible.

Participants reported that these types of skills help somewhat and help a lot their current career.

Again, learning specific work skills was not considered as helpful by 42.2% of respondents

currently employed, noting that learning specific skills was not helping at all or helping a little.

Most participants

believed that the SWT

experience helped

them adjust to different

situations and they

increased their

independence.

Most believe that these

experiences will help

them in the future.

In fact, participants

who are now working

confirm that these

learnings did help them

in their career.

PERSONAL IMPACT



Table 5. Assessment of How Skills Learned During SWT Program Helped Participant

Obtain Current Job

What skills learned during SWT program helped you get your current job?

Has not helped at all

Has helped a little

Has helped somewhat

Has helped a

lot

English language skills % 6.2% 9.0% 27.0% 57.8%

n 47 68 205 438

Understanding American way of doing business

% 14.1% 22.4% 35.6% 27.8%

n 107 170 270 211

Learning to interact with people different from me

% 1.6% 8.0% 28.8% 61.6%

n 12 61 218 467

Specific work skills % 18.5% 23.7% 30.6% 27.2%

n 140 180 232 206

Understanding American culture % 13.5% 18.3% 30.9% 37.3%

n 102 139 234 283

Becoming more independent % 0.4% 5.9% 21.2% 72.4%

n 3 45 161 549

Becoming more confident % 0.3% 5.8% 24.0% 69.9%

n 2 44 182 530

Able to adjust to different situations/more flexible

% 0.4% 3.4% 23.7% 72.4%

n 3 26 180 549

Public Diplomacy The survey included several questions/measures to address SWT’s public diplomacy goals.

These questions covered topics such as participants’ opinions about the U.S. before and after

the program, development and maintenance of friendships, and understanding of American life

and culture. The results below demonstrate that overall participation in the SWT program has a

positive impact on perspectives and understanding of the U.S. and American culture.

Perceptions and Opinions About the U.S. In comparison to the opinions held by SWT alumni before participating in the SWT program,

close to 80% of participants also became more positive or much more positive about the U.S. in

general after their experience in the U.S. (76.1%) (Figure 7, Table A.5). Furthermore, nearly

three quarters of participants (74.1%) described their opinions of American people as becoming

more positive or much more positive after completing the program.

The excerpts below demonstrate that participants had positive experiences with Americans

which, in turn, relate to more positive sentiments about the US in general.

Many were very helpful, they helped us adapt to stuff (SWT participant, 2009).



I thought that American people…didn’t like to talk to you in a park or in the bank but

that’s not true…American people was really kind with me… I was walking with heavy

bags and an American man told me ‘you need help?’ … that changed my point of view


I talked to people that were quite polite and I think that Americans have very good

manners. (SWT participant, 2016)

A similar result was found when participants were asked to describe their change in opinion

regarding American culture; 72.0% said their opinions became more positive or much more

positive after the SWT program.

Regarding the American political system, more than half of all participants’ opinions did not

change (54.9%). Also, nearly 20% of all participants developed more negative or much more

negative opinions about American cuisine after the SWT program (18.9%).

Figure 7. Change in Opinion Regarding U.S. After SWT program

Understanding the U.S. What participants learned in relation to the U.S. was also assessed. The results show almost

90.9% of all participants either agreeing or strongly agreeing that they have a better

understanding of American culture after the SWT program (Figure 8, Table A.6). Only a little

more than half of all participants agreed or strongly agreed that they received a better

understanding of the American political system (54.3%). Additionally, 11.0% of SWT alumni

either disagreed or strongly disagreed with that same statement.

4.8% 5.7% 7.1% 5.7% 6.6%2.1%

11.6%

18.9%19.2%

22.3%

18.9%

30.4% 31.9%

45.6%

54.9%

29.9%

76.1%72.0% 74.1%

63.9% 61.5%

52.3%

33.5%

51.2%

UnitedStates inGeneral

AmericanCulture

AmericanPeople

Americanway of doing

Business

AmericanCompanies

AmericanMusic

AmericanPoliticalSystem

AmericanCuisine

How have your opinions changed regarding the following?

Became more negative Stayed the same Became more positive



Figure 8. Knowledge Pertaining to U.S. Gained by SWT Program Participants

Making and Maintaining Friendships Most participants made friends during their experience. The figure below shows nearly all

(94.3%) participants making friends during their experience in the U.S. (Figure 9, Table A.7).

Nearly two thirds of all participants made friends with both co-workers and people outside of

work (65.1%) (Figure 9, Table A.8). Additionally, a vast majority (87.7%) of participants also

kept in touch with their American friends after the SWT program.

Figure 9. Friendship Experience During SWT Program

Qualitative interviews show that SWT alumni also made friends with fellow SWT participants.

The company I worked for had students of different nationalities, so it was a great way to

socialize with the people…people from all different walks of life; people I otherwise wouldn’t

cross paths with (SWT participant, 2012 & 2013).

Now I have a lot of friends all over the world and wherever I want to go, I have someone to

call (SWT participant, 2016).

94.3%

65.1%

87.7%

Made Friends with Americans Made Friends with American co-workers and people you met outside

of work.

Keep in touch with American Friends

Friendship Experience

4.2% 3.6% 1.2%

11.0%8.9%17.1%

7.8%

34.7%

86.9%79.3%

90.9%

54.3%

Improved my English American way of doingbusiness

Better understanding ofAmerican culture

Better understanding ofAmerican political system

What I learned during SWT program relating to America

Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree



As demonstrated by these quotes, forming friendships are important and impactful for participants,

but also speak to the larger goals of the SWT program regarding cultural exchange. It is these types

of authentic, personalized interactions among participants that support and energize the program’s

public diplomacy aims.

Returns to the U.S. About one quarter (24.7%) of SWT participants returned to the U.S. after participation in the

SWT program.

Of the participants who returned to the U.S., nearly half (45.8%) reported tourism and visiting

friends as the main purpose of returning (Table 6). Additionally, more than one quarter (27.0%)

selected just tourism as their main purpose of return. Also, less than a quarter (18.8%) of

participants selected visiting friends as their main purpose of return after participating in the

SWT program. More than 20% of participants listed either temporary work or internship as their

main purpose of return travel to the U.S. as well.

Table 6. Main Reason for Participant Return to U.S. following SWT Program

What was the main purpose of your return travel to the U.S.? n %

Tourism 187 27.0%

Visit friends 130 18.8%

Temporary work 88 12.7%

Internship 56 8.1%

School 44 6.3%

Job 37 5.3%

Business trip 22 3.2%

To attend conference 4 0.6%

Other63 125 18.0%

63 The “other” category consisted of SWT alumni returning to the U.S. because of their experiences in the

SWT program. Additionally, family was shown to be a large contributor in why SWT participants returned

to the U.S.



Employer Survey: Detailed Findings Methodology In addition to learning about participants’ experiences, this

study also surveyed employers to discover insights about their

experiences.

An online survey of employers was conducted on May 18,

2017. The survey was closed on May 31, 2017.

A total 461 respondents completed the survey. Survey data

was reviewed and cleaned to include only valid survey

responses. This process was similar to how the SWT alumni

survey was reviewed and cleaned. The final sample size for the

SWT employer survey was 405.

Survey questions covered topic areas such as recruitment

practices and strategies, the impact of SWT participants on

their business, and employers’ overall satisfaction with the

program.

Employer Characteristics More than one third (40.5%) of employers who completed the

survey listed hospitality as their primary industry (Table 7).

Hospitality was defined as employers or businesses that work

in the hotel, resort, or vacation industries. Additionally, more

than one fourth (27.2%) of all participants listed food service as

their primary industry. Food service refers to restaurants, cafes,

bakeries or any other business that sells food. Within that food

service sector, almost half (41.8%) described their business

establishment as a sit-down restaurant. More than one-third

(36.4%) of all participants described their business

establishment as fast food or fast casual.

More than half (67%) of employers classified their primary industry as hospitality or food service. Over half of employers identified labor shortage as their main reason for participating in the SWT program. Cultural exchange identified as an important factor in motivation to participate in SWT program. Cultural exchange and diversity seen as business advantages. Most (79.0%) of businesses or organizations that participated in the SWT program are small businesses.

EMPLOYER CHARACTERISTICS



Table 7. Primary Industry of SWT Employer Business

Primary industry of your business or organization? n %

Hospitality (e.g. Hotel, Resort) 164 40.5%

Food Service (e.g. Restaurant) 110 27.2%

Retail 37 9.1%

Camp 28 6.9%

Amusement (Amusement Park, Arcade) 21 5.2%

National Park or Monument 3 0.7%

Rental and Leasing (Other than Real Estate) 2 0.5%

Real Estate Management 2 0.5%

Other64 38 9.4%

More than three fourths (83.0%) of employers surveyed reported making 50 to 100% of all their

revenue during the summer season. Additionally, nearly 20 % (18.8%) of all employers reported

100% of their revenue being earned during the summer season. In contrast, during the winter

season, 88.9% of employers listed earning 0% to less than 50% of their revenue at that time.

Nearly one fourth (24.7%) of all employers reported earning 0% during the winter season.

Moreover, 80.5% of businesses surveyed were small businesses, defined as having fewer than

50 employees (Table 8).

Table 8. Size of Businesses Surveyed

Business Size by Number of Permanent Employees

50 or Less 51 to 100 Greater than 100

Proportion of SWT Participating Businesses Surveyed

80.5% 7.6% 11.9%

SWT Seasonal Employment Rates Each business establishment or organization that participated in the SWT program was asked

how many SWT participants, permanent employees, and non-SWT seasonal employees were

employed in 2016.

Looking across all participating SWT businesses, just over a fifth (22.4%) of the overall

seasonal workforce was comprised of SWT participants.

When stratifying by business size, results showed that 24.3% of the seasonal workforce of

smaller businesses (defined as those with 50 permanent employees or less) was comprised of

SWT participants (Table 9). In medium-sized businesses (those with 51 to 100 permanent

employees), less than 20% (18.7%) of all employees were SWT participants. The employee

64 The “other” category consists of employers in the arts, entertainment, and recreation industry.

Additionally, employers also work in transportation and landscape services.



base among large SWT participating businesses (greater than

100 employees) had the smallest portion of SWT employees,

with participants accounting for less than 12% of total number of

employees.

Table 9. Proportion of SWT Employees Within Seasonal

Workforce of Businesses Participating SWT in 2016

Business Size by Number of Permanent Employees

50 or Less 51 to 100 Greater

than 100

Amount of SWT employees employed in 2016 by SWT-participating businesses in proportion to total number of employees

24.3% 18.7% 11.8%

These data show that, overall, a small portion of individuals

employed by businesses participating in SWT in 2016 were SWT

participants. Smaller businesses seemed to benefit the most from

the program, as a greater portion of their seasonal workforce was

comprised of SWT participants compared to larger businesses.

Still, less than a quarter of employees in these smaller businesses were SWT participants. In

fact, the vast majority of employees among all businesses participating in SWT were non-SWT

employees.

Employer Support/Assistance During the SWT program, employers had the option to provide housing, transportation, and

cultural activities for the workers. More than one third, provided on-site housing for participants

(Table 10). More than a quarter (28.9%) of employers also said that they provide housing

located in the community and not on-site. Additionally, 34.3% of employers did not provide any

housing for SWT participants.

Table 10. Provision of Housing to SWT Program Participants by Employer

Did you provide housing to SWT program participants? n %

Yes, on site 149 36.8%

Yes, in the community 117 28.9%

No 139 34.3%

As discussed in the previous section, opportunities for cultural exchange were important to both

participants and employers. A majority (83.2%) of employers provided access to some type of

cultural activity or outing for SWT participants (Table 11). More than half, though, did not

provide transportation to those events. Event types ranged from visits to museums or historical

sites to attending a U.S. sporting event.

A sizeable proportion

(69.1%) of employers

reported that a lack of

participation would

have a big impact on

their ability to do

business.

While a majority (71%) of employers could stay open, cancelling reservations, reducing hours of operation and services provided would be detrimental consequences of not having SWT employees.

IMPACT OF SWT PROGRAM ON

BUSINESS



Table 11. Provision of Cultural Activities and/or Outings for SWT Participants by

Employer

Did you provide access to or arrange cultural activities and/or outings for SWT program participants?

%

Yes 82.2%

No 17.8%

Nearly three fourths (71.8%) of employers celebrated U.S. holidays with their SWT employees

in a community group Figure 10, Table B.1). Nearly two thirds (62.0%) of employers provided or

organized some type of American cultural-themed events for their SWT employees. A lower

proportion of employers provided other cultural activities while employers hosted volunteer days

at local charities for their SWT employees the least (6.8%).

Figure 10. Provision of Cultural Activities to SWT Program Participants by Employer



Employer Satisfaction Employers who participated in the SWT program were asked

to rate their overall satisfaction with the program and the

support offered to their business by sponsor organizations.

Results show that nearly all (90.9%) employers were either

satisfied or very satisfied with the SWT program (Figure 11,

see also Appendix E Table B.2).

The majority (86.4%) of employers were either satisfied or very

satisfied with the level of support offered to them by their

sponsor organization. Of the employers who rated the support

as satisfactory or very satisfactory, more than half (57.8%) said

they were very satisfied with the support offered by sponsor

organizations.

Figure 11. Overall Employer Satisfaction with SWT Program

Employers were also asked to how likely they would be to recommend the SWT program to

another business or organization in seasonal areas. Nearly all (90.6%) employers said that they

would be likely or very likely to recommend the SWT program (Figure 12). Of the employer

respondents who were likely or very likely to recommend, 70.6% said that they would be very

likely to recommend the SWT program to another business or organization in seasonal areas.

2.0%7.2%

90.9%

4.2%9.4%

86.4%

Unsatisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied

How would you rate your overall satisfaction with..

The Summer Work Travel program The support offered to your business by the sponsor organization

An overwhelming

majority (91%) of

employers were

satisfied or very

satisfied with the

program.

SATISFACTION



Figure 12. Recommendation of SWT to Other Businesses/Organizations

Motivation for Participation

Labor Shortage and Cultural Exchange Every business or organization was asked to state the main reason why they participated in the

SWT program. A majority (51.4%) of employers identified labor shortages as the primary reason

for SWT participation (Table 12). However, it is also important to note that nearly a third

(30.5%), cited cultural exchange as an important factor in their motivation for participation.

These figures are similar to alumni survey data which found that cultural exchange was an

important factor (30.5%) for alumni when describing their main reason for participation. This

data demonstrates that it is a combination of economic factors and a desire to have some

degree of cultural exchange driving employers’ SWT participation.

Table 12. Main Reason for SWT Employer Program Participation

Main reason for SWT program participation n %

Labor shortage 204 51.4%

Cultural exchange 121 30.5%

Quality workers 49 12.3%

Other65 23 5.8%

Furthermore, when employers were asked about other advantages of participating in the SWT

program besides filling seasonal job vacancies, cultural exchange was again found to be an

advantage for more than half (52.1%) of respondents. Additionally, diversity and quality of

workers was found to be an advantage for 17.8% of employers.

65 Responses for this “other” category were unclear or unrelated to the question.

0.5% 1.7% 0.7%6.4%

20.0%

70.6%

Very unlikely Unlikely Somewhatunlikely

Somewhat likely Likely Very likely

How likely are you to recommend SWT to other businesses/organizations in seasonal areas?



Employer Recruitment Efforts A vast majority (70.1%) of employers typically recruited seasonal employees via word of mouth

(Figure 13, Table B.3). Additionally, more than half (51.9%) of employers reported recruiting

seasonal employees using job websites. A smaller percentage of employers used help wanted

ads in local newspapers, help wanted signs at their establishments and participated in job fairs.

For those who did use job fairs for their recruitment, more than half (53.7%) were sponsored by

local educational institutions and nearly half (44.7%) were self-sponsored (Table B.4). Most

(87.8%) of these job fairs were not sponsored by the local government.

Qualitative interviews indicated difficulty in hiring and retaining American students.

Already are doing everything possible to recruit U.S. students. Have had 12-15 programs

and haven’t been successful. Have had task force to figure out how to retain

personnel (general manager, large resort, Wisconsin Dells).

Figure 13. Seasonal Employee Recruitment by SWT Employers

Impact on Business Employers were also asked to describe the availability of their local workforce to fill seasonal

jobs in their area. Overall, 96.8% of all employers reported a labor shortage. In other words,

employers in the SWT program have more seasonal jobs available than workers to fill them.

This finding is consistent with employers citing “labor shortage” as a main reason for

participation in the SWT program.

Qualitative interviews attribute labor shortage to two main factors. First, in resort communities,

there are not enough people to fill seasonal vacancies.

Wisconsin Dells is a tourist destination in the Midwest. The community has 6,000 people.

We require 1,400 employees. Domestically, we are always hiring, but to make it work we

need an influx of staff (general manager, large resort, Wisconsin)

70.1%

51.9%

36.0%31.6% 30.4%

21.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Word of mouth Notices on jobswebsites (e.g.,

Indeed, Monster)

Help wanted adsin local

newspaper

Help wantedsigns atbusinesslocation

Job fairs Other[1]



This is a coastal town with a small year-round population (director operations and human

resources, indoor amusement park, New Jersey)

The simple economics of American students working in resort communities are the second

factor.

They (American students) won’t come work for me because they can’t afford to (HR

director, retail, Maryland)

These themes are consistent with the statistical model presented later in this report that local

labor shortages predict the number of SWT placements in an area and reflect the reasons why

summer work participation among American youth continues to decline.

Lack of SWT Programs Equals Negative Business Outcomes When asked to rate the negative impact to their business if SWT participants were unable to

participate last season, an overwhelming majority (87.4%) of employers responded that a lack

of participation would have negatively impacted their ability to do business (Figure 14). More

specifically, nearly 70% (69.1%) of employers reported that they would have experienced a big

negative impact to their businesses if participants did not participate in the previous season

while an additional 18.3% responded that a lack of participation would have some negative

impact on their ability to do business.

Figure 14. Potential Negative Impact on Business If Lack of SWT Participation

Qualitative interviews illustrated the two findings discussed below that the lack of SWT workers

would have impact on employers’ ability to:

• Operate.

• Provide high-quality customer service.

Business manager interviews, in fact, tie the two together.

If we didn’t have the students, we would have less rides open, less hours the park would be open, less food offerings, less revenue. This would affect revenue and the ability to

5.9% 6.7%

18.3%

69.1%

No impact Little impact Some impact Big impact

Rate the negative impact if SWT participants were not able to participate last season



sustain operations year-round. It would stifle capital projects. It would have a “trickle up” effect. Everything is impacted; the entire supply chain. Hours and services could not be the same (human resources manager, indoor amusement park, Wisconsin).

Without the program, we would have half the staff and couldn’t run the business with half

the people. Plus, profits would drop immensely. Customer service would drop, there

would be many complaints. It would affect future sales (director, operations and human

resources, amusement park, New Jersey).

I would have to close stores because I could not staff them. There are no ifs, ands, or

buts. I can guarantee half, maybe a third, would have to close. They are at least a third

of my work of workforce (HR director, retail, Maryland).

Employers were asked about the likelihood of specific of negative consequences occurring

without SWT participation in the previous season. Results show that 52.7% of employers report

that the cancellation of reservations would be somewhat likely or more likely if SWT participants

were unavailable for participation (Figure 15, Table B.5). Additionally, almost two-thirds (60.9%)

of employers said that they would likely, somewhat likely, or very likely to reduce their hours of

operation without SWT participants. Moreover, 76.7% of employers reported that they would

have likely, somewhat likely, or very likely reduced the services they provided if they had not

hosted SWT participants during the last season.

Figure 15. Consequences of Not Hosting

While a majority (71%) of employers could stay open, cancelling reservations, reducing hours of

operation and services provided would be detrimental consequences of not having SWT

participants as a part of their employment teams.

Since a large portion of SWT participants were employed in the hospitality and food service

industries, employers were also asked to rate the negative impact of wait times and customer

55.3%

47.3%

39.1%

23.3%

71.0%

57.9%

17.1%21.8%

16.2%20.2%

10.3%

13.5%

27.6%

30.9%44.8%

56.5%

18.7%

28.7%

Not being able tostay open during

season

Having to cancelreservations

Reduce hours ofoperation

Reduce servicesprovided

Close locations Lay off non-seasonal staff

after the season

Consequences if employer did not host SWT participantNot Likely Somewhat Likely Likely



satisfaction if SWT participants were unavailable for participation last season. Results show

nearly two-thirds (66.3%) of employers said the lack of participation would have had a big

negative impact on wait times (Table 13). Additionally, an even larger proportion of employers

reported that the lack of SWT participants during the last season would have had some negative

impact or a big negative impact on wait times.

Table 13. Estimated Negative Impact of Lack of SWT Participation on Customer Service

How would you estimate the negative impact on… No

Impact Little

Impact Some

Impact Big

Impact

Wait times % 4.5% 8.8% 20.4% 66.3%

n 16 31 72 234

Customer satisfaction % 2.9% 6.7% 21.4% 68.9%

n 11 25 80 257

Revenue

% 8.0% 12.4% 25.8% 50.8%

n 34 53 110 217

When asked to estimate the impact on customer satisfaction, 90.3% of employers said that if

SWT participants had not been available last season, they would have experienced some

negative impact or big negative impact on customer satisfaction, with more than two-thirds

(68.9%) of employers reporting a big negative impact. Additionally, over half (50.8%) of

employers said there would likely be a big negative impact on revenue if they had not hosted

SWT participants.

Summer Work Travel Changes the Business Culture Recognizing that SWT participants’ interactions with customers and their community is an

important component of measuring the successful impact of the program, employers were

asked several questions about participants’ exchanges with their employers, customers and

community members. Nearly all (97.8%) employers reported that their customers interact well or

very well with SWT program participants. Additionally, more than two thirds (71.1%) of

employers interact with SWT program participants very well.

When asked how well members of the community interact with SWT program participants,

employers rated their interactions as well or very well a large majority (98.2%) of the time.

Additionally, employers reported that members of the community interacted with SWT program

participants very well more than two-thirds (70.1%) of the time.

In addition to interaction and exchanges as an important gauge of impact, employers were also

asked how well SWT program participants contributed to several activities at the business or

organization. A vast majority (92.1%) of employers agreed or strongly agreed that SWT program

participants contributed to a positive culture in the workplace (Figure 16, Table B.6). A majority

(93.3%) of employers also agreed or strongly agreed that SWT program participants add

international flair to the establishment.



Figure 16. Contribution of SWT Program Participants to Host Business

Employers interviewed shared the viewpoints shown by the data, emphasizing the value of

different cultural perspectives and interaction among people of different cultures to their

businesses.

They bring diversity; varying viewpoints. They provide a global perspective for the U.S.

workforce. It is important for the U.S. to contribute to make a smaller world, to make the

world more global (director, operations and human resources, amusement park, New

Jersey).

They add a unique cultural experience. They all have their nametags with their names

and their countries. This leads to unique interactions between guests and employees

(general manager, large resort , Wisconsin).

Best—getting to know the students from all over the world. They share their stories and backgrounds with the other employees. Learning a lot about different cultures. Really fabulous for ALL employees (human resources manager, indoor amusement park, New Jersey).

1.70% 3.20% 1.70% 2.20% 3.50%6.20%

24.70%

4.90%

16.30% 13.10%

92.10%

72.10%

93.30%

81.50% 83.50%

Contribute to apositive culture in the

workplace

Bring fresh ideas andinnovative solutions

Adds internationalflair to establishment

Contribute withlanguage and cultural

skills

Make the communitymore sensitive to

other cultures

To what extent do you agree that SWT participants...

Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree



Economic Impact and Contribution to U.S. Economy The findings reported are based on the review of available reports on summer youth

employment, reported placements of SWT participants in geographic areas, and the BLS and

U.S. census data for the same areas. Regression analyses were used to examine the

relationship between the number of SWT participants and youth unemployment as local

workforce and demographic characteristics of the areas of placement.

Key Findings SWT participants contribute to local economies:

The total estimated contribution of SWT exchange visitor participants to the U.S. economy in

2016 was about $509 million. That roughly equals $5,300 per participant.

The downward trend in youth employment is best explained by the competing priorities

of U.S. youth enrolled in school rather than effects of SWT program.

• BLS reports that summer work participation rates of American youth have been declining

consistently since the 1990s. Although the trend has been affected by adverse economic

conditions, it does not fully recover after recessions.

• BLS reports more summer time school enrollment during the same time, and a report by

Pew Research notes that community volunteerism and internship programs are an

alternative to seasonal employment.

• Summer time employment for youth not enrolled in school has also declined, but BLS

notes that participation of this group in the workforce has increased at the same time.

This suggests the youth not enrolled in school are more likely to be employed in year-

long jobs and are less likely to seek seasonal employment.

There was no statistical relationship between the number of SWT participants and youth

unemployment rates.

• Regression analyses examining the factors influencing youth unemployment rates

showed no relationship between youth unemployment rates and the number of SWT

participants (standardized coefficient -.005 p=.342).

• Youth unemployment rates were related to indicators of a community’s economic health,

such as the overall unemployment rate.

The number of SWT program participants in areas of placements are too small to have a

meaningful impact on youth employment.

• In 2016, SWT participants were placed in 242 of 388 metropolitan statistical areas

around the U.S. In 50% of the areas of placement there were fewer than 22 participants.

• Only nine communities had more than 1,000 SWT participants.

• Even in areas with larger number of participants, SWT participants represented a small

fraction of the workforce involved in tourism-related industries. For example, in resort

communities on the Delaware and Maryland Atlantic Ocean shores, SWT participants

represented 6.8% of total workforce involved in tourism related occupations.



Factors indicative of seasonal labor shortages were significant predictors of the number of

SWT placements.

• Regression analyses examining the relationship between the number of SWT

participants and workforce and demographic characteristics of an area showed:

o SWT placement was higher in locations with fewer 18- to 24-year-old young

adults enrolled in institutions of higher learning (standardized coefficient= -.01

p=.0001). Given that college-aged students are potential candidates for seasonal

jobs, the findings show that there are more SWT participants in the areas where

there are fewer college students.

o SWT placement was higher in locations where there were lower rates of

employment in industries that typically rely on seasonal labor (standardized

coefficient= -.037, p=.011). More SWT participants were placed in areas where

fewer local residents were employed in industries such as hospitality,

amusement, or retail as a percentage of the total workforce in the area.

o There were more SWT participants in areas with higher workforce participation

(standardized coefficient= -.029, p=.001), suggesting higher levels of competition

with other businesses in similar industries for seasonal employees.

o SWT placement was positively related with commute time to work (standardized

coefficient= -.022, p=.001), meaning areas with longer work commute times had

higher SWT participation.

The survey of SWT program employers supports findings that there is a seasonal labor

shortage and indicated negative impact on business if the SWT program was not

available.

• Almost all SWT program employers surveyed reported labor shortages (96.8%).

• Most stated that not having SWT participants would have a negative impact on their

ability to do business (87.4%).

• Over half predicted that lack of the SWT program would have a big negative impact on

their revenue (87.4%).

If the SWT program was unavailable:

o Approximately half of businesses reported they would likely or very likely need to

reduce services provided (56.5%) or be required to reduce hours of operation

(44.8%).



Contribution to the Economy The total estimated contribution of SWT exchange visitor participants to the U.S. economy in 2016 was about $509 million. That roughly equals $5,300 per participant.

This calculation is based on 94,983 participants in 2016, as reported by the State Department. The estimated economic impact assumes the following for each SWT participant:

• Forty hours of employment for 13 weeks at state minimum wage or federal minimum wage if state wage is lower.

• Program fees of $1,011, which includes sponsor fees, health insurance, visa application and SEVIS fees.

Based on the survey of over 300 SWT participants, the calculation of the economic impact also assumes that:

• SWT participants on average brought $1,308 with them to the U.S., and spent 90% of that amount locally ($1,177)

• SWT participants spent 78% of their wages in the U.S. with the remaining 22% going toward repaying travel costs and fees.

The above calculation does not include money spent on air travel, however, the survey data

show that over half of SWT participants flew on U.S. airlines.

Factors Contributing to Decline in Seasonal Workforce Seasonal workforce participation by U.S. youth has been

declining consistently for decades according to reports from

the U.S. Department of Labor66,67 and Pew Research.68

Both reports note that currently approximately 30% of

young people take summer jobs. The Pew report further

shows that although drops in summer employment

corresponded to periods of economic recessions, the rates

of summer employment did not recover after the recessions

and continued to decline. This suggests that factors other

than the health of the economy could be responsible for the

decline in U.S. youth’s participation in seasonal

employment.

Drawing on data from the Current Population Survey, the BLS report shows more students

enrolled in summer academic activities during the same period of summer job participation

decline. The BLS report concludes that that lower summer work participation rates among youth

is due to a higher emphasis on academics than on work during the summer and not on the job

66 https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/declining-teen-labor-force-participation.pdf 67 https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/schools_out/ 68 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/the-fading-of-the-teen-summer-job/

Decrease in seasonal

employment among American

youth is more likely due to their

own volition and competing

interests than on stressors due

to economic condition or

immigration, or the effects of

specific cultural exchange

programs such as Summer

Work Travel program.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/archive/declining-teen-labor-force-participation.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/schools_out/




shortage. Similarly, Pew Research notes that there are “more students enrolled in high school

or college over the summer; more teens doing unpaid community service work as part of their

graduation requirements or to burnish their college applications; and more students taking

unpaid internships.” Rules regarding financial aid may also be a contributing factor. Seasonal

earnings count against qualifying income for student aid, and some college students may feel

that summer earnings do not justify the loss of financial assistance.69 Thus, the bottom line is

that the decrease in seasonal employment among U.S. youth is more likely due to their own

volition and competing interests than on stressors due to the economic condition or immigration,

or the effects of specific cultural exchange programs such as the SWT program.

Furthermore, BLS reports show that work participation rates of teens not enrolled in school

increased as the summer work participation rates decreased. The decline in summer work

participation among teens and young adults not enrolled in school is likely due to them joining

year-long employment.

These two trends—the decline in summer work participation among youth enrolled in school

and greater participation in the workforce among those are not enrolled in school—suggest that

the pool of potential candidates for seasonal employment has been shrinking throughout the

decade.

There is another important trend to consider in

discussions about youth employment. According to the

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the

overall number of full-time students employed has

decreased significantly from 2000 to 2013, yet 26% of

full-time students were employed more than 20 hours a

week70 according to 2013 data. We can assume that

many of the students working more than 20 hours a week have more permanent work

arrangements that preclude them from taking temporary seasonal jobs, thus further removing

them from a pool of potential candidates for seasonal employment.

The implication of these data is that the SWT program operates in the environment of seasonal

job shortages due to:

• Lower willingness of U.S. youth to work during the summer.

• Already significant participation of U.S. youth in the workforce during the year.

• Better permanent employment outlook for youth not enrolled in school.

Therefore, it is unlikely that SWT program participants compete with U.S. youth for seasonal

jobs.

69 http://ciwib.org/workforce-investment-board/hiring-season-on-cape-cod/ 70 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_ssa.pdf

The SWT program operates in the

environment of seasonal labor

shortages. Therefore, it is unlikely

that SWT program participants

compete with American U.S. youth

for seasonal jobs.

http://ciwib.org/workforce-investment-board/hiring-season-on-cape-cod/

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_ssa.pdf



Relationship Between Summer Work Travel and Youth Unemployment Analyses of youth unemployment data for metropolitan

statistical areas (MSAs) showed a small, non-significant

negative coefficient between the number of SWT

participants and youth unemployment rates defined as

unemployment rate for the 16- to 24-year-old cohort

(standardized coefficient -.005 p=.342).

The negative coefficient indicates that there were more

SWT placements in MSAs with lower youth

unemployment rates. However, by established consensus, statistically non-significant findings

indicate no relationship.

Rather, the unemployment rates for other age cohorts were significant predictors of youth

unemployment, indicating that the health of local economy rather than SWT participation were

the driving factors of local youth unemployment. For example, unemployment rates for those

between the ages of 25 and 64 (standardized coefficient 1.03 p=.0001) and those 65 of age and

over (standardized coefficient .119 p=.007) were significantly and positively related to the

unemployment rate among the youth ages 16 to 24.

Impact of MSA Placements on Youth Employment In 2016, SWT participants were placed in 242 of the

388 MSAs in the U.S. The median number of

placements was 22. This means that in 50% of the

areas where SWT participants were placed, there were

fewer than 22 SWT participants. In fact, 75% of the

areas had fewer than 165 participants. There were

more than 843 SWT participants in only 5% of the areas. Only nine communities had more than

1,000 SWT participants. Thus, in most places in the U.S., the number of SWT participants is too

small have a meaningful impact on youth employment.

Not surprisingly, the areas with higher placements were resort communities. For example, the

Madison, Wisconsin MSA, which includes the Wisconsin Dells, a popular summer destination

for residents of the Chicago and Milwaukee areas, had 5,085 SWT participants. The Salisbury,

Maryland MSA, which includes the resort city of Ocean City Delaware beach communities of

Rehoboth, Dewey, and Fenwick had 2,864 SWT participants. The Barnstable Town,

Massachusetts MSA encompasses Cape Cod and had 2,842 participants. The Myrtle Beach-

Conway-North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina MSA had 2,836 participants.

Proportion of SWT Participants in Tourism and Related Industries

In most places in the U.S., the

number of SWT participants is too

small to have a meaningful impact

on youth employment. In 75%% of

MSAs, there were less than 165

SWT participants.

There is no relationship between

the number of Summer Work

Travel (SWT) participants and

youth unemployment.

Health of the local economy

influences youth unemployment

rates and not competition from

the SWT program.



Even in areas of high SWT participant placement, SWT

participants represent only a small fraction of the

workforce working in the tourist-related industries. For

example, the Salisbury, Maryland MSA hosts

approximately 15 million visitors annually. Specifically,

the number of visitors for Sussex County, Delaware

(which includes Rehoboth and Dewey beaches) is

estimated at 7 million.71 In Ocean City, Maryland, there are between 320,000 and 345,000

vacationers, and up to 8 million visitors during the summer season.72 According to BLS data,

there are 41,940 workers engaged in industries related to tourism in the Salisbury, Maryland

MSA. Thus, 2,864 SWT participants represented only 6.8% of the workforce in industries related

to tourism (Figure 17). The percentage of SWT participants representing the workforce in

tourism is similar in Barnstable, Myrtle Beach and Madison MSAs.

Figure 17. Percentage of Workforce in Tourist-Related Industries Comprised of SWT

Participant

Relationship Between Number of SWT Placements and Seasonal Workforce Shortage

• According to one report, recruiters in the Myrtle Beach area say that the number of SWT

participants and H2B guest workers are still not sufficient to meet seasonal labor

demands.73

• Even though Ocean City, Maryland is one of the areas with high SWT placement, in

2017, an Ocean City job fair sponsored by the local chamber of commerce

advertised12,000 open seasonal positions.74

71 http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/money/2014/02/02/tourism-remains-mainstay-of-local-

economy/5154887/ 72 http://oceancitymd.gov/Planning_and_Zoning/pdfs/2006OCCompPlan.pdf 73 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/area.12242/full

74 https://oceancity.org/employment/

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

Madison, WI MSA

Salisbury, MD/DE MSA

Barnstable Town, MA MSA

Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC MSA

Percentage of the Workforce

Even in areas of high SWT

participant placement, SWT

participants represent only a small

fraction of the workforce working in

the tourist- related industries.

http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/money/2014/02/02/tourism-remains-mainstay-of-local-economy/5154887/

http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/money/2014/02/02/tourism-remains-mainstay-of-local-economy/5154887/

http://oceancitymd.gov/Planning_and_Zoning/pdfs/2006OCCompPlan.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/area.12242/full

https://oceancity.org/employment/



• According to an interview with a large employer in Wisconsin Dells, the resort town of

6,000 residents needs to fill 12,000 seasonal jobs to meet the demands of the tourist

season.

To explore the issue of a potential labor shortage as a factor driving SWT placements, a

regression model looked at predictors of the number of SWT participants placed in a

metropolitan statistical area based on the workforce characteristics needed. The findings of the

regression model are summarized in Figure 18. The unit of analysis was the individual

metropolitan statistical area. The number of participants was defined as the overall number of

SWT participants placed in the area between 2012 and 2016. Since some MSAs did not have

placements during each year in the 5-year observation period, combining the number of

participants over the 5 years increased the number of the MSAs in the analyses and hence the

precision of the estimates. The model was cross validated by conducting analyses for each

year. Although the magnitudes of coefficient were slightly different, the direction of effects nor

significance changed.

We should note that in the interpretation of the regression model findings, it is important to keep

in mind that coefficient for any one predictor depends on the effects of all the others in the

model. Thus, it is unlikely that any given area will have all the characteristics representing the

direction and magnitudes of the relationships shown by the regression model.

Figure 18. Regression Model



A regression model showed that:

SWT placement was higher in locations with fewer 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in

institutions of higher learning.

The findings show that there were more SWT placements in the areas with fewer young people

enrolled in colleges and universities (standardized coefficient= -.012 p=.0001). College students

are a potential pool of seasonal labor force. Thus, there are more SWT participants in the areas

where there are fewer college students who can potentially take seasonal jobs.

The table below illustrates this relationship (Table 14). Based on the data for 2016 placements,

in the areas with lowest proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in institutions of higher

learning, there was one SWT participant for every 100 college or university students. In

contrast, in the areas with higher proportions of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in the institutions of

higher learning, there were three SWT participants for every 1,000 college or university

students.

Table 14. SWT Participant Placement in Relation to School Enrollment

School Enrollment Ratio Ratio of SWT Participants to Total Population Enrolled in School

Low (Lowest 25% of MSA(s) .01 (1 to 100)

High (Highest 25% of MSA(s) .003 (3 to 1000)

SWT placement was higher in the areas with lower percentage of workforce involved in

tourism-related work.

Findings show that more SWT participants were placed in the areas where there were fewer

workers in in hospitality, recreation, and amusement industries as a proportion of the overall

workforce (standardized coefficient= -.037, p=.011). For example, even in areas with higher

number of SWT participants, such as Myrtle Beach or Maryland-Delaware beach resort

communities, only 23% of the workforce are engaged in tourism-related industries.

Placement of SWT participants was higher in areas with greater workforce participation

rates.

Results from the regression analysis (standardized

coefficient= -.029, p=.001) indicate that there were

more SWT participants in the areas with higher

workforce participation rates (i.e., percentage of

residents ages 16 and over who are employed). The

workforce participation figure excludes those who are

self-employed, and factors in such considerations as higher percentage of retirees and

individuals who are not seeking employment (e.g., those staying at home to take care of

children) which affects the work participation rate in each community. The findings suggest that

employers in the areas with higher workforce participation rates are likely to face competition

with other businesses in the similar industries for seasonal employees.

These findings support a thesis of a shortage of seasonal employees as the key factor driving

SWT placements. The lack of available of college students, a proportionally smaller workforce

These findings support a thesis of

the shortage of seasonal employees

as the key factor driving SWT

placements



involved in tourism-related fields, and high work force participation rates indicate, as suggested

by published reports, that employers may have problems meeting seasonal labor needs.

The two other factors in the model—the length of the commute time and correspondence of

SWT placements and local workforce characteristics—further support the conclusion that the

number of SWT placements in an area are related to local seasonal workforce shortages.

Placement of SWT participants was positively related with commute time to work.

Areas with longer work commute times had

more SWT participants (standardized

coefficient= -.022, p=.001). This finding

suggests that transportation is a barrier to

youth seasonal employment in areas with

higher SWT placements. In other words,

potential youth workers may have trouble

getting to seasonal jobs, or the length of the

commute may make these jobs less

desirable. The bottom line is that length of

the commute potentially shrinks the available

seasonal workforce. For example, the year-round population of Ocean City, Maryland is about

7,000 residents. The nearest city with a substantial population is Salisbury, Maryland, 29 miles

away, which, per the U.S. Census has 32,899 residents. The commute time from Salisbury to

Ocean City can take anywhere from 42 to 51 minutes. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina has

population of 31,035, but only 11% of its residents are between the ages of 18 and 24 (about

3,400 residents). The largest city closest to Myrtle Beach is Wilmington, North Carolina with a

population of 115,933, and is 76.4 miles or at least 90 minutes by car. A closer town, Conway,

South Carolina (population 21,000) is still 15 miles or 26 minutes away.

SWT placements were higher in the areas where job placements of SWT participants

closely matched the type of work being done by the local seasonal workforce.

This metric looks at the placement of SWT participants in terms of BLS job categories related to

tourism in relationship to the distribution of the same BLS job categories among the local

workforce. So, the placement of SWT participants is higher in areas where the types of jobs

done by SWT participants mirrors the types of jobs done by the local workforce (standardized

coefficient= .189, p=.0001). For example, we would expect the number of SWT participants to

be lower in the areas where most of them are engaged in specific roles (e.g., working as

lifeguards), whereas the local workforce is more likely to engage in other occupations related to

tourism. What this relationship suggests is that more SWT participants are placed in areas

where there is an overall shortage of seasonal employees rather than in areas that may have

shortage in very specific occupations.

Survey of the employers participating in the SWT program affirm the findings about the

labor shortage and report negative consequences on businesses if the SWT program

was not available.



Results from the aforementioned survey of SWT participating employers further confirm that

there is a pervasive shortage of seasonal employees, and that many of these businesses would

likely suffer without supplementation by seasonal SWT employees.

As previously discussed, an overwhelming majority of SWT employers surveyed reported labor

shortages (96.8%). Over half (50.8%) reported a potential big negative impact on their revenue

if they were not able to host SWT participants, and many also stated that this would have a

negative impact on their ability to do business (87.4%). More specifically, employers expressed

that if the SWT program was unavailable, they would likely or very likely need to reduce

services provided (56.5% of businesses reported this outcome), would be required to reduce

hours of operation (44.8%), or would have to lay off permanent staff after the season (28.7%)

(Table B.5).



Criticisms of the Program Criticisms of the SWT program and work exchange programs like the Au Pair program75 focus

on the potential to exploit program participants. For example, reports by the Southern Poverty

Law Center (SPLC),76 address the issues of program oversight, and claim that the program is a

source of cheap foreign labor that does not meet purported cultural exchange goals. The

criticisms of the program made from these perspectives use a case study approach. SPLC, for

example, presents case studies of eight SWT participants in North Carolina. Although there is a

potential for exploitation in any employment setting, eight cases cannot be considered

characteristic of the program as a whole. SWT is the largest exchange program in the U.S. The

data presented in this report show high levels of satisfaction with the program as witnessed by

employers’ satisfaction levels and the willingness of participants to recommend the program to

their peers. Similar findings about satisfaction with the program have been reported by sponsor

organizations and by the U.S. State Department.75 Thus, although some participants may have

had negative experiences as those described by the SPLC, given the documented

overwhelming satisfaction with the program, these experiences are not typical of the vast

majority of program participants. We should further note that unlike guest worker programs like

the H2B visa program, the SWT program has mandated mechanisms for conflict resolution

administered by both the sponsor organizations and the State Department. Granted, while no

oversight mechanism is perfect, a small number of case studies do not indicate the systemic

failure of the established oversight mechanisms designed to protect participants.

In addition, the participants survey clearly shows that it is the cultural exchange component of

the program, rather than an opportunity to earn money, that is attracting them. Earning money

does not necessarily distract from the cultural mission of the program. Rather, a strong

argument can be made that earning money while in the U.S. enables participants who otherwise

might not have an opportunity to visit the U.S. to do so.

From an economic perspective, the central thesis of the criticism of the SWT program (as well

as other J1 visa programs that involves labor) is that SWT program participants compete with

American youth for summer jobs. This argument is made by groups representing the far right

and far left of American politics. A presentation at the American Sociological Association76 cited

Senator Sanders’ (I, Vermont) concern about the effects of the SWT program on youth

employment. A Denver Post article on the SWT program similarly claimed that visa programs

encouraged seasonal hiring of foreign students while U.S. youths go jobless,77 noting Senator

75 https://j1visa.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Summer-Monitoring-Report_wExecSum-

FINAL_02142017.pdf 76 Bowman, C. G. and Bair, J. L. (15 August 2014). The Historical Transformation and Contemporary

Significance of the J-1 Summer Work Travel Visa. Paper presented at the American Sociological

Association Annual Meeting, Hilton San Francisco Union Square and Parc 55 Wyndham San

Francisco,CA. 77 http://www.denverpost.com/2011/06/18/visa-program-encourages-seasonal-hiring-of-foreign-students-

while-u-s-youths-go-jobless/

http://www.denverpost.com/2011/06/18/visa-program-encourages-seasonal-hiring-of-foreign-students-while-u-s-youths-go-jobless/

http://www.denverpost.com/2011/06/18/visa-program-encourages-seasonal-hiring-of-foreign-students-while-u-s-youths-go-jobless/



Udall’s (Dem., Colorado) concern about the impact of the program on youth employment in the

state.

However, the assumption that the SWT program negatively impacts youth employment is based

on a simple but faulty logic: If an SWT participant has a job in the U.S., it means that an

American did not get it. This claim is made without empirical evidence. It is rather a naïve

“common sense” assumption. If any evidence is offered, it tends to be anecdotal. For example,

transcripts from a Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) panel discussion on SWT program78

alleges that there are idle American youth in a Vermont resort town while SWT participants are

hard at work.

A single case or even several handpicked examples cannot disprove a broader trend. In fact, as

we demonstrated based on the analyses of BLS and SWT placement data, a key driver of SWT

placements in any given area is a seasonal labor shortage. In other words, SWT participants

supplement the existing workforce in areas experiencing labor shortages rather than compete

for existing jobs with local workers.

CIS did publish an analysis of youth summer employment which claimed that immigration in

general adversely effects summer employment of American youth.79 Although the report

focused on overall immigration and only tangentially mentioned the SWT program, there are two

points made by the report that are worth consideration:

• The rate of youth seasonal employment is declining.

• There has been a decrease in the availability of summer jobs for both youth enrolled in

school and those who are not.

As discussed above, however, the decline in the rate of youth seasonal employment is a well-

documented trend. The second point (the decrease in summer work participation rates among

both youth enrolled in school and those are not) addresses the explanation put forth by BLS that

the decline in seasonal employment among U.S. youth is due to shifting priorities from work to

school indicated by greater participation in summer time academic programs. The CIS argument

is that since the rates for both enrolled and non-enrolled youths declined over the same time,

commitments to school as an explanation of the declining summer workforce participation

cannot be valid. What the CIS report does not mention is that although the rate of summer work

employment decreases for both groups, there is a corresponding increase in overall workforce

participation among youth not enrolled in school. A more accurate description of the trend is that

those who are enrolled in school are, in fact, shifting their priorities during the summer, whereas

those who are not enrolled in school are not interested in seasonal work because they have

year-round employment.

A more recent report from the same organization claimed that there was no labor shortage in

key fields that employ guest workers.80 Although the focus of the article is on H2B visas, the

argument potentially undercuts the findings presented here that seasonal labor shortages are

one of the key ways SWT program helps businesses. CIS argued that there is no labor shortage

78 http://cis.org/PanelTranscripts/Summer-Work-Travel-Panel 79 http://cis.org/teen-unemployment 80 https://cis.org/Camarota/Wage-Data-Shows-No-Labor-Shortage-H2B-Occupations

http://cis.org/PanelTranscripts/Summer-Work-Travel-Panel

http://cis.org/teen-unemployment

https://cis.org/Camarota/Wage-Data-Shows-No-Labor-Shortage-H2B-Occupations



because wages in key industries that employ guest workers are actually down, thus indicating

an excess of labor. The argument is based on an analysis of the American Community Survey

data. There are several problems with CIS’ conclusions. First, even if the results are taken at

face value, an excess of labor is not the only factor depressing wages. For example, turnover

rates can affect wages if more experienced and higher payed workers are leaving for higher

paying jobs in other industries. In fact, the turnover rate in the hospitality industry based BLS

data is over 70%,81 with over 50% being quit rates, meaning workers voluntarily leave their jobs.

This is an increase from 2010 figures when the turnover rate was under 50%. The industry

association summarizing these rates concluded that workers in the hospitality industry are

leaving for better jobs. However, the BLS reported an increase in wages among leisure and

hospitality workers from 2013 to 201682 based on the Current Population Survey (CPS) data.

Unlike ACS, CPS was specifically designed to estimate workforce participation and wages83and

therefore can provide more reliable estimates of economic activity and wages than ACS. The

advantage of CPS over ACS in estimating wages and other economic indicators is well

documented.

.

81 http://www.nrn.com/blog/hospitality-turnover-rose-721-rate-2015 82 https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag70.htm#workplace_trends 83 https://www.bls.gov/lau/acsqa.htm#Q08

http://www.nrn.com/blog/hospitality-turnover-rose-721-rate-2015

https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag70.htm#workplace_trends

https://www.bls.gov/lau/acsqa.htm#Q08



Appendix A: Detailed Tables: Participant Survey

Table A.1 Likelihood of Participant Recommendation of SWT Program Experience

How likely are you to recommend the SWT

program… Very

Unlikely Unlikely

Neither likely or unlikely

Likely Very likely

To your friends % 0.9% 1.4% 3.9% 23.1% 70.7%

n 25 38 110 647 1980

Table A.2 Participant Recommendation of SWT Program Experience

Have you already recommended the SWT program… Yes No

To your friends % 98.0% 2.0%

n 2574 53

Table A.3 Importance Factors in Participating in the SWT Program How important or not important were the following to your decision to participate in the SWT Program?

Not at all important

Not important

Somewhat important

Important Very

important

Improving English % 6.0% 3.5% 8.1% 22.3% 60.0%

n 169 98 227 625 1681

Learning American way of doing business

% 1.8% 6.3% 17.4% 36.3% 38.3%

n 49 175 487 1016 1073

Experience living in different culture

% 0.1% 0.4% 3.0% 21.9% 74.6%

n 4 10 84 612 2090

Learning how to interact with people of different culture

% 0.2% 0.7% 5.8% 25.3% 67.9%

n 6 20 163 709 1902

Learning specific work skills

% 3.6% 9.8% 20.0% 28.8% 37.8%

n 101 274 559 807 1059

Earning money % 2.2% 7.3% 27.0% 35.1% 28.4%

n 61 204 756 983 796

Visiting U.S. % 0.3% 1.2% 7.1% 27.6% 63.8%

n 8 34 199 773 1786

Gaining work experience for degree

% 14.2% 17.9% 17.3% 21.6% 29.0%

n 398 500 485 606 811



Table A.4 What SWT Participants Learned or Experienced During the Program

What I learned or experienced during my SWT program

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree

Agree Strongly

Agree

To better interact with people different from me

% 0.2% 0.7% 5.9% 43.9% 49.3%

n 4 13 112 834 937

Specific work skills % 1.3% 3.8% 16.3% 45.9% 32.7%

n 25 73 309 872 621

Valuable work experience % 2.1% 4.1% 15.5% 39.9% 38.5%

n 39 77 295 758 731

More confidence % 0.4% 1.7% 9.1% 38.4% 50.4%

n 8 32 173 730 957

My own culture % 1.2% 3.4% 21.2% 41.5% 32.8%

n 22 64 402 789 623

Adjust to different situations % 0.2% 0.6% 6.7% 42.2% 50.3%

n 4 11 127 802 956

More independence % 0.1% 0.9% 5.9% 33.1% 60.0%

n 1 17 113 629 1140

Experiences that will help me in the future

% 0.5% 0.9% 4.8% 33.6% 60.2%

n 9 17 91 639 1144

To work as part of a team % 1.1% 2.5% 12.7% 40.1% 43.6%

n 21 48 241 761 829

How to solve problems % 0.5% 2.1% 13.3% 44.2% 39.9%

n 9 40 253 839 759

How to manage my time % 0.6% 3.3% 15.6% 39.4% 41.2%

n 11 62 296 748 783

How to manage my money % 0.7% 3.3% 13.8% 38.7% 43.4%

n 14 62 263 736 825



Table A.5 Change in Opinion After SWT Program

How has your opinions changed regarding the following?

Became much more

negative

Became more

negative

Stayed the same

Became more

positive

Became much more

positive

U.S. in general % 0.9% 3.9% 19.2% 44.9% 31.2%

n 24 110 537 1256 873

American culture % 0.7% 5.0% 22.3% 45.5% 26.5%

n 19 139 624 1275 743

American people % 0.8% 6.3% 18.9% 40.0% 34.1%

n 21 176 529 1120 954

American way of doing business

% 1.1% 4.6% 30.4% 39.9% 24.0%

n 32 128 850 1117 673

American companies % 1.2% 5.4% 31.9% 38.4% 23.1%

n 33 151 894 1074 648

American music % 0.4% 1.7% 45.6% 26.7% 25.6%

n 10 48 1278 747 717

American political system

% 2.6% 9.0% 54.9% 22.0% 11.5%

n 74 253 1536 616 321

American cuisine % 5.3% 13.6% 29.9% 30.4% 20.8%

n 148 381 837 851 583

Table A.6 Learning Experience During SWT Program Relating to America

What I learned during my SWT program relating to America

Strongly Disagree


Agree Strongly

Agree

Improved my English % 2.2% 2.0% 8.9% 41.8% 45.1%

n 42 38 169 794 857

American way of doing business

% 0.8% 2.8% 17.1% 51.9% 27.4%

n 16 53 324 987 520

Better understanding of American culture

% 0.4% 0.8% 7.8% 48.6% 42.3%

n 8 16 149 924 803

Better understanding of American political system

% 2.1% 8.9% 34.7% 36.8% 17.5%

n 40 169 660 699 332



Table A.7 American Friendship in SWT Program

American friends in SWT program Yes No

Made friends with Americans during SWT program % 94.3% 5.8%

n 2639 161

Keep in-touch with American friends after SWT program % 87.7% 12.3%

n 2314 325

Table A.8 Type of Friends During SWT Experience

Did you make friends with your co-workers, someone outside of work or both? n %

Co-workers 750 28.4%

People I met outside of work 172 6.5%

Both 1717 65.1%



Appendix B: Detailed Tables: Employer Survey

Table B.1 Provision of Cultural Activities to SWT Program Participants by Employer

What type of cultural activities do you provide for SWT participants? Yes No

Visits to museums or historical sites % 58.2% 41.8%

n 196 141

Host American cultural-themed events % 62.0% 38.0%

n 209 128

Attend U.S. sporting events % 37.7% 62.3%

n 127 210

Host a volunteer day at a local charity % 6.8% 93.2%

n 23 314

Celebrate an American holiday with community group % 71.8% 28.2%

n 242 95

Other84 % 32.9% 67.1%

n 111 226

Table B.2 Overall Satisfaction with SWT Program Experience

How would you rate your overall

satisfaction with… Very

unsatisfied Unsatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Satisfied Very

satisfied

The SWT program % 1.0% 1.0% 7.2% 26.2% 64.7%

n 4 4 29 106 262

The support offered to your business by the sponsor organization

% 1.5% 2.7% 9.4% 28.6% 57.8%

n 6 11 38 116 234

84 The cultural activities that were provided in addition to the options selected above were going to parks

and recreational activities, outdoor aquatic activities, and employee gatherings.



Table B.3 Recruitment of Seasonal Employee Recruitment by SWT Employers

How do you typically recruit seasonal employees (excluding SWT participants/other foreign workers)?

Yes No

Help-wanted ads in local newspaper % 36.0% 64.0%

n 146 259

Notices on jobs websites (e.g., Indeed, Monster)

% 51.9% 48.1%

n 210 195

Help-wanted signs at business location % 31.6% 68.4%

n 128 277

Word of mouth % 70.1% 29.9%

n 284 121

Job fairs % 30.4% 69.6%

n 123 282

Other85 % 21.2% 78.8%

n 86 319

Table B.4 Sponsors of the Job Fairs Utilized by SWT Employers to Recruit Seasonal

Employees

Who is the sponsor of job fairs used to recruit seasonal employees (excluding SWT participants/other foreign workers)?

Yes No

Self-Sponsored % 44.7% 55.3%

n 55 68

Local chamber of commerce % 32.5% 67.5%

n 40 83

Local government % 12.2% 87.8%

n 15 108

Local educational institution % 53.7% 46.3%

n 66 57

Other86 % 17.1% 82.9%

n 21 102

Not sure % 0.8% 99.2%

n 1 122

85 Employers in the SWT program also used social media, job placement agencies and foreign exchange

programs to recruit non-SWT seasonal employees. 86 Employers who selected “other” for who sponsored the job fairs they used, consisted of job placement

agencies, foreign exchange programs, and camps.



Table B.5 Consequences of Employers Not Hosting

How likely would the following consequences be if you did not host SWT participants during last season?

Not at all likely

Not likely

Somewhat likely

Likely Very likely

Not being able to stay open during season

% 28.7% 26.6% 17.1% 8.4% 19.2%

n 109 101 65 32 73

Having to cancel reservations % 24.6% 22.7% 21.8% 10.4% 20.5%

n 78 72 69 33 65

Reducing hours of operation % 21.8% 17.3% 16.2% 14.3% 30.5%

n 81 64 60 53 113

Reducing services provided % 13.4% 9.9% 20.2% 15.7% 40.8%

n 51 38 77 60 156

Close locations % 40.8% 30.2% 10.3% 4.8% 13.9%

n 135 100 34 16 46

Lay off non-seasonal staff after the season

% 34.4% 23.5% 13.5% 8.4% 20.3%

n 107 73 42 26 63

Table B.6 Contribution of SWT Program Participants

To what extent do you agree or disagree that SWT program participants…

Strongly Disagree


Agree Strongly

Agree

Contribute to a positive culture in the workplace

% 1.0% 0.7% 6.2% 27.7% 64.4%

n 4 3 25 112 261

Bring fresh ideas and innovative solutions

% 0.5% 2.7% 24.7% 37.5% 34.6%

n 2 11 100 152 140

Adds international flair to establishment

% 0.5% 1.2% 4.9% 35.8% 57.5%

n 2 5 20 145 233

Contribute with language and cultural skills

% 0.7% 1.5% 16.3% 33.6% 47.9%

n 3 6 66 136 194

Make the community more sensitive to other cultures

% 1.0% 2.5% 13.1% 30.4% 53.1%

n 4 10 53 123 215



Appendix C: Regression Models Regression analyses will look at the workforce characteristics, SWT participation and

demographic characteristics within a metropolitan statistical area (MSA). MSA is the smallest

geographic unit in BLS data. MSA may include areas from different states and counties. For

example, Salisbury MSA includes both Ocean City, Maryland and Rehoboth, Delaware. On the

other hand, Atlantic City MSA includes most of the area referred to as the Jersey Shore. BLS

data provides wage and labor category data only on the state and MSA level. The state level

does not provide necessary sensitivity to conduct the necessary analyses. However, MSAs do

not cover all the U.S., more specifically very rural areas. Based on data we received, for all

years of placement (2012 to 2016), we could assign 144,784 SWT participants into MSAs, thus

excluding 59,092 participants who were placed outside of MSAs. Therefore, any conclusions

based on the presented analyses are limited to participants placed in MSAs. It is our belief that

estimating necessary parameters for participants outside of MSAs would have introduced too

much uncertainty into the estimations, thus potentially opening the results to greater scrutiny.

Furthermore, we used data for all submitted years to increase the precision of the models and to

assure that we would have as much available data as we can.

The first model assesses whether there is relationship between the number of SWT participants

and the youth unemployment rate in the MSAs. The second model predicts SWT participation

based on labor force characteristics and demographic characteristics of the MSAs.

To construct the model, EurekaFacts combined the data provided by the host organization (i.e.,

Alliance for International Exchange data) with BLS and U.S. Census data. MSA is a standard

geographic designation in BLS and census data. MSA designation is computed from the

Alliance data based on reported zip codes for host employers. If data for host employers was

missing, the MSA designation was based on participants’ zip codes of residence while

participating in the program.

For the purposes of these analyses, we concentrated on three dominant employment categories

of SWT participants: hospitality, recreation, and amusement industries. Employment categories

were imputed based on:

• Job titles in the Alliance data base and/or;

• Host employer.

Job titles were re-coded into the appropriate BLS labor categories and then combined based on

associated industry.

When necessary, the predictor variables were calculated based on other values with the data

set. For example, in the second model, ratios of employment in hospitality, recreation, and

amusement industry were based on the reported number of employees in those fields and the

overall number of individuals employed in the MSA.

When predictor variables were highly related (r=.80), the models were tested with a different

predictor entered. For example, the population of 18- to 24-year-olds in an MSA is highly

correlated with the number of 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in school. Therefore, separate models



were run using one of these predictors or another. The model that was more predictive (i.e.,

explained more variance) was retained.

Model 1: Youth unemployment rates The criterion variable for the Model 1 was youth unemployment rate in an MSA. Unemployment

rate is defined as the number of individuals searching for a job over the overall number of

individuals in the workforce. Individuals who are serving in the Armed services, incarcerated,

and those not looking for employment (e.g., retired or enrolled in school) are excluded from the

workforce estimation.

Predictor variables

Average time of commute: Average time reported going to and from work in the MSA per BLS

data.

Unemployment rate ages 25 to 65: Unemployment rate of the 25 to 65 cohort: Number of

individuals looking for work over the number of individuals in the workforce as defined

previously.

Mean hourly wage: Average wage for MSA per BLS data, includes all occupational categories.

Population of 16+: Total population of individuals in an MSA over 16 years of age (BLS data).

Population of 16 to 24 Employed: Number of individuals in MSA between the ages of 16 and

24 who are employed (BLS data).

SWT Participants: Total number of SWT program participants in an MSA between 2012 and

2017.

Population 18 to 24: Number of individuals between the ages of 18 to 24 in an MSA

(BLS/Census).

The first model used the step-wise procedure with mean hourly wage and number of SWT

participants forced into the model.

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -1012.700 586.497 -1.727 .085

Average time of commute

59.446 24.716 .013 2.405 .017

Unemployment rate: 25 to 64 yo

.417 .016 1.032 25.298 .000

Unemployment rate: 65+_

.010 .004 .119 2.738 .007

Mean hourly wage -19.735 16.619 -.006 -1.188 .236

Population of 16+ -.014 .001 -1.180 -12.145 .000

Population of 16 to 24 Employed

.080 .008 .459 9.992 .000

SWT Participants -.051 .054 -.005 -.952 .342

Population of 18 to 24 .058 .007 .567 7.902 .000



Model 2: Number of SWT Participants. Criterion variable: Total number of SWT participants placed in MSA between 2012 and 2016.

A square root transformation was applied to the raw values in order to meet the assumptions of

the regression analysis.

Predictor variables:

• Proportion of population 16 years or more in the labor force: Total population 16 or

more in the MSA who are in the labor force divided by total population 16 years or older

in the MSA.

• The number of jobs (employment) in the given occupation per 1,000 jobs: The

number of employments in the given occupation per 1,000 employments in the

metropolitan area.

• Proportion of population 18- to 24-years old enrolled in school: Total population 18-

to 24- years old in the metropolitan area enrolled in school divided by total population

18- to 24-years old in the metropolitan area.

• Average commute time to work: Average time reported going to and from work in the

MSA per BLS data.

• Correspondence of SWT job categories to percentage of same job categories in

MSA: Ratio of number of SWT participants in different job categories to number of local

employees in the same categories.

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -.240 .027 -9.013 .000

Correspondence of SWT job categories to percentage of same job categories in

MSA.

4.611 .354 .189 13.012 .000

The number of jobs (employment) in the given occupation per 1,000 jobs in the

given area.

.000 .000 -.037 -2.544 .011

Average commute time to work. .004 .001 .022 7.686 .000

Proportion of population 18- to 24- years old enrolled in school.

-.082 .019 -.012 -4.282 .000

Proportion of population 16 years or more in the labor force.

.368 .036 .029 10.162 .000



Q and A Findings are overwhelmingly supporting of the SWT program. Could this be due to the biased

selection of the respondents?

Respondents were selected randomly from a list of all respondents provided by the Alliance

members. There is obviously a possibility that only the participants who were happy with the

program responded to the survey. However, the pattern of results is consistent with other data

collection efforts, including those conducted by DOS.

The report presents analyses based on placements in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).

Some participants are placed in the areas outside of MSAs. How does this affect conclusions of

the report?

The BLS reports employment data by the MSAs and some micro MSAs and by state level.

Therefore, to estimate the employment trends in areas outside of MSAs, state-level data must

be used. The statistical technique is called “small area estimation” which necessarily makes

various assumptions about the characteristics of the area and its relationship to employment

data. The validity of these assumptions potentially detracts from the statistical robustness of

those estimates.

Could factors other than those discussed in the report effect the size of SWT placements in an

area?

It is possible. However, any other factor must be considered in relationship to other factors in

the model, even if there is a strong univariate relationship (i.e., there is a significant relationship

between that factor and the number of SWT placements). This is because the statistical model

finds the best combination of factors that explain the number of SWT placements.

The analyses are based on participant data reported by the Alliance for International Exchange

data and therefore does not include all SWT participants.

The cross check between the data reported by the Alliance for International exchange members

and State Department data in shows 60% correspondence of placements on the state level.

Therefore, the data from Alliance for International exchange represent a good estimate of the

patterns of SWT placements. Analyses of the state level using DOS and BLS data would not

yield robust estimates for the influences on SWT placements. This is because specific areas

defined by MSAs can potentially vary greatly in terms of workforce characteristics than the

individual state.

I can think of an area which seems to contradict the findings of the statistical model.

Not all areas are expected to reflect all the characteristics that predict SWT placements.

Essentially, regression models are a weighted sum of different variables, where the influence or

the weight of any single factors is represented by its coefficient. For example, an area can have

higher SWT participation even in the areas with high enrollment in colleges and universities,

however, other factors, such as workforce participation or shortage of workforce in tourism-

related industries may influence the number of SWT placements.

EurekaFacts LLC51 Monroe Street,Plaza East 10Rockville, MD 20850

240-403-4800 866-My-Facts [email protected]

EurekaFacts.com

summer work travel (swt) - alliance exchange · this report presents findings from the assessment...

Documents